Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 6 Mar 2012

Vol. 758 No. 1

Private Members’ Business

Turbary Rights: Motion

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

recognises the innate value of Ireland's unique natural habitat and the necessity to protect it from harm;

understands the need for a balance to be struck between habitat conservation and the freedom of the people of Ireland to benefit from their local natural resources;

acknowledges the proposals from the Turf Cutters and Contractors Association (TCCA) entitled The TCCA Proposal's on 57 Raised Bog Complexes to EU Commission and Irish Government, dealing with the various issues surrounding Special Areas of Conservation and Natural Habitats Areas, and which, inter alia, propose that:

— in a small minority of bogs, domestic turf cutting and conservation should co-exist with the consolidation of turf cutting into smaller areas, in conjunction with all possible mitigation measures;

— in the vast majority of bogs, turbary rights should be relocated to a nearby bog of similar quality and infrastructural access;

— Compensatory Habitat Exchange should be completed in one instance; and

— additional raised bogs should be designated areas of high conservation value by way of ‘Compensatory Habitat' to compensate for areas of co-existence and habitat exchange;

recognises the potential of the proposals, particularly in light of the fact of this being the first ever consultation process to engage with affected communities and land owners in line with the approach set out in the European Commission document LIFE-NATURE: Communicating with Stakeholders and the General Public, in relation to Natura 2000 sites, which states:

— "The principle of collaboration is enshrined in the Habitats Directive, requiring that conservation measures take account of the economic, social and cultural requirements as well as the regional and local characteristics of the area. The manner in which Natura 2000 will be implemented is very important - the involvement of the owner of private land is crucial. LIFE shows that contracts are preferable to constraints"; and

calls on the Government to:

— acknowledge:

— the full impact of the Habitats Directive, not just on the holders of turbary rights, but also on the communities which surround the areas designated;

— in particular, small farms which could be threatened by bogland overgrowth and resultant flooding if unplanned drainage restrictions are placed upon them by the National Parks and Wildlife Service without full consultation with local communities; and

— that those persons directly impacted by the legislation were not consulted and that the State has failed over the years to communicate adequately with ordinary land owners and turf cutters to gain their trust and goodwill;

— treat fairly the citizens of Ireland who have been affected by the Habitats Directive by recognising that without proper planning and consultation the legislation will impact their incomes, the value of their properties, the security of their fuel supply and their cultural heritage;

— make resources available for the further development and implementation of these proposals;

— engage actively with the European Commission to seek a resolution within the terms of the Habitats Directive, and to prepare and submit a National Raised Bog Restoration Plan to the Commission as a matter of urgency; and

— recognise the significant concerns among the turf cutting community and those living adjacent to bogs of the risk of flooding.

I wish to share time with Deputies Thomas Pringle and Clare Daly.

I would like to dedicate this speech to the late Paddy Concannon. He was our president until he, sadly, passed away in the past week in his 94th year. He fought this battle with us the whole way along the line and I hope he is looking down on us and supporting us. He was the last living former elected member of Clann na Talún and our thoughts are with him and his family. He would have been here this evening if he had lasted long enough.

I thank Bord na Móna, especially Mr. Gerry McNally, who helped us with the information we needed along the way. I cannot say we have been happy with everyone we have dealt with but he has been a gem.

For the first time in 20 years, there has been a thorough canvassing of the views of domestic turf cutters on solutions to the difficulties they face due to the designation of their bogs as special areas of conservation, SACs.

Based on the results of an extensive consultation process, the Turf Cutters and Contractors Association, TCCA, has prepared proposals with the potential to resolve the issue to the satisfaction of all reasonable people. The TCCA is ready and willing to progress these proposals in a spirit of co-operation and partnership towards a successful conclusion. Over an 18 month period, our representatives have visited every one of the 53 SAC bog complexes or the 57 bogs affected. In a series of 25 meetings, we met local turf cutters and distributed 17,000 questionnaires. The results show that people are deeply committed to both their traditional turf cutting practices and to bog conservation. It is important to point out that our consultation process is in line with the approach set out in the European Commission document entitled, LIFE-NATURE: Communicating with Stakeholders and the General Public, regarding Natura 2000 sites, which states:

The principle of collaboration is enshrined in the Habitats Directive, requiring that conservation measures take account of the economic, social and cultural requirements as well as the regional and local characteristics of the area. The manner in which Natura 2000 will be implemented is very important - the involvement of the owner of private land is crucial. LIFE shows that contracts are preferable to constraints.

It is important to remember that.

I refer to the main pillars of our proposal, the first of which is, in the vast majority of the bogs, relocation to a nearby bog of similar quality and infrastructure. I am one of those who is prepared to move to another bog. There is one within a reasonable distance of my plot, which has good quality turf. I am willing to move and compromise. I do not know what my grand-uncle, Harry Fleming, would think of me moving from the plot his family had for more than 100 years but I hope he would be happy enough. We are not moving for the craic; we are moving to show that we are prepared, if needs be, to compromise but that will require compromise on the other side as well. If there is compromise on that side, we will compromise.

The second element of our proposal calls for co-existence of domestic turf cutting and conservation in a small minority of bogs with the consolidation of turf cutting into smaller areas in conjunction with all possible mitigation measures. This refers to people who do not have a bog to move to within a reasonable distance or who are within a reasonable distance of a bog but it does not have good quality turf with a high calorific value. I propose in this instance, on behalf of the TCCA, that we will ask people who cut on various parts of the bog to consolidate into one area to minimise the impact on the hydrology of the bog. There is no necessity to put down a liner or a dam between the area of co-existence where they cut turf and the area that is conserved. Based on what we know from our management of these areas, that is not required. However, if that is what the State bodies need to be done, it will be done. We have been told by environmental groups that the liners or dams will not work but, last week, we were given clear examples of where the National Parks and Wildlife Service have made this work at the peatlands forum. It can, therefore, make it work in our case.

Third, we will require total compensatory habitat exchange on one bog. In this instance, there is nowhere for any turf cutter to move. There is no bog close enough with good quality turf and given the number of people cutting on the bog, consolidation would be a farce because even if they moved around into different areas, the entire bog would still be cut. In that case, we require complete compensatory habitat exchange.

The fourth pillar of our proposals is the designation of additional raised bogs of high conservation value by way of compensatory habitat to compensate for areas of co-existence and habitat exchange. If the three previous pillars are implemented, only 2% of the land area of the 53 SACs will need to have turf cut on it but it is not right to leave it at that. The TCCA has scoured the country and looked for alternative sites of equal quality and we have put them forward as an alternative to compensate for the habitat that is lost.

The 2% of the SAC land we need will last 250 to 300 years. Who knows what is around the corner? Who knows whether we will still cut turf in 50 or 70 years? However, one thing for sure is that, at most, all we need will be 2% of the land and we can compensate with 2.5 times that acreage.

Domestic turf cutting has been in decline for years for a variety of reasons. The decline in the numbers of people depending on turf for their domestic fuel is documented in the Fernandez report of 2005. With regard to the notion that people will cut an entire bog away, if one has planted an acre of spuds and one's neighbour has acres of land beside it, one does not plant spuds on his land because that is not what people do down the country. The same applies to turf cutting. The average plot size for turbary rights is 1 acre while some are 0.5 acre or 0.25 acre. Once that is cut away, that is the end of it. The notion that someone could cut away the entire bog is ridiculous given the State owns 95% of bogs.

This has never been a monetary issue. Even in today's economic climate, only a small minority of the 20,000 turbary owners on the 139 raised bog SACs and NHAs have accepted the compensation package on offer. More than 95% of the people who have contacted our organisation were not entitled to it. We can only conclude that the package is in essence only attractive to people who do not cut turf.

If previously agreed compensation deals are honoured by the Government, we believe a further minority may be willing to give up their turbary rights or to sell their bogland entirely or in part. This is not necessarily in our interest but people have free will to do what they wish. A flexible approach should be taken on individual preferences for annual or lump sum payments, and the different ownership arrangements, formal and informal, for example, acquired rights, must be recognised and dealt with in a flexible and creative manner by the Government. There is no one-size-fits-all solution.

The strange thing about the compensation package is that people were told they were not entitled to it if they had not cut turf in the last five years. The irony is phenomenal if we listen to some people who talk about the fact that there was no derogation. In essence, the compensation package rewards only the people who ignored the fact that turf cutting was supposedly against the law. It is interesting that is how it went.

It is vital to note that our people have taken the responsibility of guardianship of Ireland's natural heritage seriously, but there can be no effective guardianship where those who have traditionally shouldered that responsibility are ignored, as has been the case. It is not to the credit of previous Governments and the national agencies that we are no further advanced today than in 1998, and it has not done a lot for conservation.

The TCCA represents some of the poorest people in Ireland, many of whom live in areas that are already recognised as disadvantaged, with objective one status. Our people's grievances are too numerous to detail here. They are best summarised by saying that over the six years of the negotiation of the habitats directive from 1986 to 1992 and the 14 year botched implementation attempt since its transposition into Irish law in 1997, the population indigenous to the designated areas has been excluded from all decision making, denied consultation, denied access to information both general and scientific, denied representation, denied legal assistance and denied reasonable compensation or alternatives. They have had agreements dishonoured, been treated unfairly and been subjected to a State-backed campaign of intimidation, victimisation and threats. That is, at the moment, in the past. We should leave things in the past, but if we leave them in the past without learning from them, it is, to say the least, a wasted opportunity.

The conduct of the relevant Government agencies, unfortunately, has brought both the law and the EU into disrepute in the eyes of the people. I suggest the Minister read appendix A of the report entitled TCCA Proposals on 57 Raised Bog Complexes to EU Commission and Irish Government. We will not have time to go through it today, but I hope the Government Members will before tomorrow. Appendix A documents the process, begun in 2004, between the turbary rights holders and landowners of All Saints Bog, County Offaly, and Dúchas, the predecessor to the NPWS, and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. As will be seen, it is a story of incompetence at best and, at worst, of neglect and disregard for citizens. To date the Departments have failed to complete a contract they initiated. Of 1,200 such agreements entered into by Departments, 540 have still not been honoured. This is not something we came up with off the top of our heads; this information came on 11 July last from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government.

The TCCA's submission to the working group on the cessation of turf cutting on certain raised bog special areas of conservation and natural heritage areas is provided in appendix F of the aforementioned report. I suggest the Minister read it, as there is a lot to learn. This detailed submission, along with the work documented in the report, are testament to the determination of the TCCA to work with the authorities in resolving this issue. It is also testament to the numerous failed initiatives to date. Appendix B contains extracts from the Official Report of meetings of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs dated 17 November 2009 and 8 July 2010. It can be seen that all members of the committee supported our case and argued that the settlement agreed in May 2007 should be honoured and completed.

Our members seek neither conflict nor confrontation. Instead, we seek to rely upon adherence to the stated EU principles of democracy, transparency, due process and subsidiarity. We bring an unrivalled and in-depth practical knowledge of our bogs and people to the table, combined with the know-how and equipment to deliver practical conservation solutions on the ground. Under our proposals, as I said earlier, approximately 98% of SAC raised bog area can be conserved. The addition of raised bog compensatory habitats will easily offset or perhaps completely negate any shortfall. In many instances, the farmland surrounding a raised bog would be vulnerable to flooding if the drainage were allowed to close over. Thus, many farmers would suffer if drainage was not maintained or compensatory drainage was not put in place to keep their lands flood-free. It is not clear from what the NPWS has stated whether any such works will be done. This is an issue that must be addressed and applies to nearly all bogs reviewed in our report.

Bog owners, domestic turf cutters and farmers have a great responsibility in the guardianship of Ireland's natural heritage. It is not a responsibility we take lightly. A review of the site synopsis reports of some of the designated areas raises questions about why certain areas were included while other areas were not. The synopsis of Derrynabrock bog and a map of same have been included in appendix C of the report. The Minister should definitely look at that. No reason was given in the synopsis for the fact that the SAC designation included a very large part of the bog but left out a considerable area that is contiguous to the entire bog and appears to have all the same characteristics of the area enclosed by the SAC. The same designated area includes fields that were reclaimed in the 1970s. These fields, which now produce silage, are part of the SAC, while part of the raised bog is not. That is not good. An examination of the sequence of maps issued by the NPWS for Derrynabrock bog is worth considering. The boundary shown in a 1993 map moved eastward on a map issued in 1996. People are confused enough already about this. The boundary then moved east by one turf bank in a map issued in 2010 and then east by a further three banks in a 2012 map. That is causing a problem for people.

Similarly, there are many instances of bogs with SAC designations that finish abruptly at the boundary of a State or semi-State property. In one instance, at Barroughter bog, the designation excludes a piece of property that is owned by the ESB, even though the bog and the land surrounding it on all sides are designated. That is also shown in our report.

The TCCA feels that any reasonable examination of bogs and any efforts to conserve bogland must include the activities of the large-scale commercial operators. In appendix D, if the Minister has time to consider the report, there are two aerial photographs of bogs in the Clara-Ferbane area and the Longford-Lanesborough area. The photographs show clearly what has happened in these areas, yet there is no plan to deal with this industrial-scale destruction. It is no accident that the best preserved bogs in Ireland are those that have traditionally been used by small-scale domestic turf-cutters. In many instances, the presence of small-scale domestic turf-cutters has inhibited wholesale industrialisation and afforestation of the bogs in which we have traditionally operated. Yet now that conservation efforts are a necessity, the small-scale domestic cutter is the first to be asked to make sacrifices.

I might need another two minutes, if that is all right.

It is important to tackle the issue of the supposedly evil turf machine in comparison to the sleán. Maybe the turf machine does not look quite as dreamy on the bog as the man with the peaked cap, the pipe in his mouth and the sleán in his hand, but that does not necessarily mean it is worse to use the machine. In fact, it is less harmful. When a turf-cutter uses the hopper machine, he uses less turf. Why? If he is using the sleán, he needs to go down further into the bog to find good turf. With the machine, he can mix the bad turf and the good turf and he uses less of the turf bank overall. It mixes the whole thing up. On top of that, when one reaches the waterline, where the best turf is - my father calls it black stone turf - it cannot be cut with the sleán. This means that using the machine gives better quality turf while using less bog. In addition, there is no need to drain the high bog for a tractor and transport box, as the machine is on tracks, which means it does not sink as readily. The machine exerts two pounds per square inch on a bog while the average human exerts four pounds per square inch. It does not look as nice as the man with the sleán but it does not cause a problem in terms of putting pressure on the bog.

The final argument that must be tackled is that someone with a machine will cut more turf. About 20 years ago, my mother bought an electric mixer. Until then she had used a wooden spoon. After she bought it she did not make 100 times more cakes and we did not eat any more cakes. The reality is the turf cutter does not want to burn any more turf. He probably has a stove now and burns even less turf. Even if he wanted to cut every last bit of turf, he can only cut what is on his patch, no more than a farmer cannot plant spuds in the neighbour's field.

Research carried out for the Environmental Protection Agency's bogland report in 2011 found that Irish people have positive attitudes towards the domestic cutting of turf and also value bogs as heritage, regarding both as compatible, as does the Turf Cutters and Contractors Association. We are especially aware of how turf is deeply symbolic to Irish people wherever they are in the world. It represents our history, economic self-sufficiency and identity. We hope that the proposals of the Turf Cutters and Contractors Association will be developed by those who watch over and work the land and will ensure the living and working landscapes we see today are safeguarded into the future.

I welcome opportunity to contribute to this motion and I commend Deputy Flanagan and the Turf Cutters and Contractors Association on the tireless work they have put into this issue over the past 18 months and on the preparation of the motion before the House.

The proposals from the TCCA represent an enormous amount of work carried out by people in a voluntary capacity over the past 18 months. These are people who travelled the country talking to communities, hearing their concerns and, in some cases, providing the first information that many of them had about the implications for their bog. Only 15% to 20% of people throughout the country have been contacted about the intended designation of bogs. For example, in the case of one bog in the Lough Ree complex, when the TCCA came to the local turf cutters in October last year, it was the first time that they had any information on the designation of the bog as a special area of conservation, SAC.

This has resulted in a complete breakdown in trust throughout the country. Mr. Justice Quirke's report has recognised this situation. He has said: "What is undeniable is that there has been a breakdown of communication and a breakdown of trust between the relevant parties which may be difficult to restore." He goes on: "Trust must, however, be restored and I am of the opinion that the Peatlands Council can and should play a significant role in the restoration." This opportunity cannot be lost and it is the role of the Department now to ensure it is not lost.

In doing this, the judge has acknowledged the integrity of the turf cutters:

Those most affected by the restrictions are the turf cutting communities who for generations, and in some cases for centuries, have enjoyed ownership, property and turbary rights on the relevant bogs. It was made absolutely clear by the speakers who represented them that those communities comprise hardworking, decent, respectable and law abiding citizens of this State who have no intention or wish to break any Irish or European law ... [A]s a result of circumstances over which they have had no control and as a result of legal and other procedures into which they appear to have had little, if any, input, they are now at risk of acting unlawfully or failing to act lawfully.

He goes on: "I accept further that these communities have a genuine and sincere commitment to the preservation of the environmental integrity of the relevant bogs and many are prepared to cease cutting turf in order to accommodate that overriding objective."

The TCCA report has made an honest attempt to address many of the issues involved and I believe has come up with a workable solution to the difficulties which, if followed in the spirit of the Government amendment to the motion, will resolve what could be a very difficult situation. This solution would leave no one at risk of failing to act lawfully.

Surely the implementation of environmental legislation and the preservation of the environment should also have at its heart the people who live in the environment. Everyone supports the protection of the environment and people are as much part of the environment as the flora and fauna in the countryside. In many circles in the media and the environmental lobby, people in rural Ireland are represented as Neanderthals with no concern for preservation. The proposals from the TCCA show that with effort and concern for both people and the environment, a workable solution can be reached.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service's own figures have shown that in bogs where there has been no turf cutting, bogs have still declined and in others where cutting has continued, habitat has increased. Stopping turf cutting is not a silver bullet that will solve the very real pressures that bogs are under. Including people as part of the solutions is the way to ensure progress.

What has been really shown by this dispute is how the State has failed its citizens and the environment. There is only lip service given to consultation in this country. A number of individuals working voluntarily can travel around the country, consult communities, give people information and arrive at a solution, yet the State, with all its resources, cannot achieve this and cannot inform citizens about decisions that are affecting them. The Government must learn from this and ensure in the future that consultation is just that, not talking at or down to people and not presenting them with a done deal. There is nothing that will undermine environmental protection than the superior behaviour of the State.

Mr. Justice Quirke recommends that the Peatlands Council prepares a national plan for the raised bogs. The TCCA plan is a good starting point on that road. In a nutshell, the plan makes three recommendations: preserve 98% of the already designated bog, co-existence on 2% of the designated bogs and the creation of another compensatory habitat that would represent 5% of the acreage of the entire SACs. By working with communities this plan has been put together. By consultation it has been arrived at. There is a lesson here for the State. I only hope it is prepared to learn from it.

The Minister will propose an amendment to the motion and that amendment has the type of language that could solve this problem. The National Parks and Wildlife Service must live up to the sentiments in the amendment. Bord na Móna and Coillte are prepared to work with the Peatlands Council and be part of the solution. The Minister must make sure that sentiment is acted on and correct the gaps in consultation highlighted by this dispute. If volunteers can travel around and arrive at solutions, then surely the Department can do it too. The development of the plan for the bogs could and should help to develop a model of consultation that can be used in the future to ensure communities can have faith in the process.

There are no raised bogs in Donegal but there are plenty of blanket bogs. Blanket bog around the country will come under scrutiny in the near future, with many already in SACs. To avoid confrontation in the future, I urge the Government to use the model of consultation developed by the turf cutters and recognise that people should be at the centre of the environment.

In the current climate in the country, as we face into a referendum on the fiscal compact, a terrible thought strikes me. The need for the Government to have the referendum passed could be factoring into its response to the motion. How can the turf cutters be sure that this is not a ruse to ensure they vote the right way in the referendum? I urge the Minister to put on the record that as this process goes on, the referendum result will not impact on the work of finding a solution that is acceptable to the turf cutters. If the referendum is passed - and I hope it is not for many reasons - I hope the attitude of the Government to finding a solution will not change and that work will continue, with the partnership seen in the consultation so far with the TCCA and the Peatlands Council.

I commend the turf cutters on the work they have done and the proposals they have brought forward and I thank them for the opportunity to speak on the motion.

Like my colleagues, I am pleased to speak in favour of this motion. It is fitting that when we vote on it tomorrow night, it will be the first anniversary of the election of this Dáil. To me, that is quite fitting because what we have seen on this issue in the course of the past year is a process of democratic engagement, the likes of which has never been seen in this country.

As part of that process, lay people have given of their time and resources to travel the length and breadth of the country to engage with residents affected by this issue. Some representatives of these organisations have spent over 118 days on the road, engaging in discussions with their neighbours and people they had never met before. Countless public meetings have been held across the country. Hundreds of people have attended these real town hall meetings in order to air their grievances and look for solutions.

Families already reeling from austerity are worried about their ability to meet their fuel needs by cutting turf on plots on which they have had turf cutting rights for many generations. I have met many of the people affected during the campaign against the household tax. Some of them turned up at meetings in towns such as Athlone and Newbridge, County Kildare. They are feeling the effects of austerity, the attacks on rural Ireland and the ending of a particular way of life. They feel strongly about this issue which they see as the last straw. I have no doubt that such people will be in attendance tomorrow night in their droves to make sure our vote marks the beginning of the end of the issue they have faced for so long. Government Deputies will accept that it is undoubtedly the case that residents feel an acute sense of betrayal by Fine Gael, in particular. Representatives of Fine Gael led voters to believe they would be on their side if they were elected. The initiative proposed by Deputy Flanagan will give Fine Gael Deputies an opportunity tomorrow to do something positive and overcome some of the damage that has resulted from the clear betrayal I have mentioned.

Deputy Flanagan has alluded to the process of designating areas as special areas of conservation. When one examines some of the areas in question, it appears the designation process is random and arbitrary. The Deputy mentioned the map covering the Derrynabrock bog. A line was drawn down the middle of it. A big chunk of the bog was left out in the designation, while fields were included in it. Where was the scientific basis for this? Similarly, Kilteevan bog was designated as a special area of conservation, while large industrial bogs in the area owned by Bord na Móna were not included, even though they were not in production and the habitats involved were just as worthy of preservation. Kildare County Council allowed housing to be built on a flood plain near Mouds bog near my home town of Newbridge. If the bog floods, as is proposed by the measure, the water table will be raised and the chances of flood damage to housing will be increased. How can this be environmentally positive? Some of the designations would lead one to believe visits to these sites were not made. It is certainly not the case that all of the bogs were examined. I suggest old maps were used in this regard. It is clear that the designation process took place against the backdrop of Ireland being threatened by the European Union. The idea was that every moment's delay would cost the taxpayer tens of thousands of euro. Obviously, this was not the case. Such a suggestion motivated much of the designation process in the background.

This is an example of the usual à la carte attention being paid to European Union directives and proposals. When it comes to issues such as bogs or septic tanks, we are told there is only one way to implement directives. When it comes to corporation tax, however, the European Union can be ignored and stood down. When it comes to abortion rights, it is also a case of “who cares, let us ignore the European Union.” When it comes to these issues, we decide to hide behind the European Union and blame it for what is being done. I suggest it is entirely possible for the Government to implement the measures being proposed by the Turf Cutters and Contractors Association, while complying with European legislation. I do not accept the view that it is not permissible under Irish law for turf cutting to take place with conservation on these sites. There are ways in which it can be permissible; for example, in instances where there are no alternatives to co-existence. In fairness to the representatives of the turf cutters, they have found alternative sites in the vast majority of cases. Where they have not been able to do so, no alternative is possible. In that sense, co-existence is legitimate.

I suggest the over-riding public interest is an imperative reason to defend the rights of those who have engaged in this activity for many years. It is the case that this is a priority habitat. The evidence of the Government's own statistics demonstrates that, as Deputy Thoms Pringle said, turf cutting is not the only activity that has an impact on raised bogs. There are countless examples of places where the active bog is decreasing, even though no turf is being cut. There are other examples of places where the active raised bog is increasing, even though no turf is being cut. Similarly, there are examples of places where the active raised bog is increasing, even though turf is being cut. Turf cutting is not the only activity that is detrimental to these bogs. That is vindicated by the scientific evidence available in the Government's own reports. This is a hugely important part of the process. It is entirely within the Government's remit to do this. The solution being proposed by the Turf Cutters and Contractors Association recognises the importance of the habitat and the rights of individuals who have a long association with raised bogs. The position of people who have respected, looked after and passed on such bogs through the generations has not been given sufficient status. As has been said, the proposal would protect an area greater than the size of any facility which will be used for continued turf cutting. An alternative proposal that a greater area be protected is being made. The relocation proposition is entirely credible and testament to the active engagement and participation that has taken place on a voluntary basis. It is a positive step.

I have examined some of the submissions we received today from those who oppose the motion. They have suggested relocation would perpetuate unsustainable peat-burning and deny investment in alternative low carbon energy sources. To be honest, such a suggestion really weakens the argument of the Friends of the Irish Environment. The contention that relocation would mean an opportunity to invest in renewable energy sources would be lost is just ridiculous, given that we already have the designation. Where are the Government's efforts to develop renewable energy sources? Last week the Minister, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, denied that the development of the sector was Labour Party policy prior to last year's general election. There is absolutely no evidence to support that proposition, particularly given that the number of bogs being preserved is greater than the number on the table. Any proposal that will work will undoubtedly need the co-operation of those involved in it. In the absence of such co-operation, anything proposed will be doomed to failure.

The purpose of the motion and this campaign has been to urge the Government to work with residents, particularly in areas where there will have to be co-existence, and come up with the best areas. The only sustainable solution will be the one that is accompanied by active engagement. If such a solution is to be delivered, resources and energy will have to be invested in this process. If the Government is serious about what it is doing, it will have to be done in this way. I reiterate that nobody will be conned by this. There is a substantial degree of scepticism about the Government's record in this regard such that nobody will take promises lightly. I urge the Government to take the opportunity to repair some of the damage it has done.

I would like to share time with Deputy Paul Connaughton.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"recognises:

— the innate value of Ireland's unique natural habitat and the necessity to protect it from harm;

— the need for a balance to be struck between habitat conservation and the freedom of the people of Ireland to benefit from their local natural resources;

— the full impact of the habitats directive, not just on the holders of turbary rights but also on the communities which surround designated areas;

— the significant concerns of turf cutting communities, farmers in particular, in relation to potential threats of flooding or bogland growth;

— the need to treat fairly the citizens of Ireland who have been affected by the habitats directive, including the need to address concerns in relation to proper planning and consultation, the impact on income and the value of properties, the security of fuel supply and the protection of cultural heritage; and

— the need for the trust and goodwill of ordinary land owners and turf cutters to be restored and strengthened through consultation and effective communication from the Government regarding measures to protect and restore raised bog special areas of conservation, SACs;

acknowledges the proposals from the Turf Cutters and Contractors Association, TCCA, entitled, The TCCA Proposals on 57 Raised Bog Complexes to EU Commission and Irish Government, dealing with the various issues surrounding SACs and natural habitats areas, and which, inter alia, propose that:

— in a small minority of bogs, domestic turf cutting and conservation should co-exist with the consolidation of turf cutting into smaller areas, in conjunction with all possible mitigation measures;

— in the vast majority of bogs, turbary rights should be relocated to a nearby bog of similar quality and infrastructural access;

— compensatory habitat exchange should be completed in one instance; and

— additional raised bogs should be designated areas of high conservation value by way of "compensatory habitat" to compensate for areas of co-existence and habitat exchange;

further recognises the potential of the proposals, particularly in light of the fact of this being the most comprehensive consultation process to engage with affected communities and land owners in line with the approach set out in the European Commission document LIFE-NATURE: Communicating with Stakeholders and the General Public in relation to Natura 2000 sites, which states:

The principle of collaboration is enshrined in the Habitats Directive, requiring that conservation measures take account of the economic, social and cultural requirements as well as the regional and local characteristics of the area. The manner in which Natura 2000 will be implemented is very important - the involvement of the owner of private land is crucial. LIFE shows that contracts are preferable to constraints;

recognises the steps taken by the Government to address longstanding issues, including establishing the Peatlands Council under an independent chairman, and the putting in place of compensation and relocation schemes to help address the needs of turf cutters;

commends the contribution of the Peatlands Council, the TCCA, the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, Bord na Móna, environmental non-government organisations and all other relevant parties, for their work on developing solutions to address the needs of turf cutters affected by the requirements of the habitats directive;

further acknowledges and accepts the report of Mr. Justice Quirke on the proceedings of the Peatlands Forum, held in Athlone between 28 February and 2 March;

notes Mr. Justice Quirke's recommendation regarding the need for a national plan for Ireland's SAC raised bogs;

further notes Mr. Justice Quirke's concerns in relation to consultation, communication and trust between the State and those affected by turf cutting restrictions;

welcomes the commitment of Government to act on the recommendations of Mr. Justice Quirke and, in particular, to:

— work with all parties to develop a shared understanding and future for the SAC raised bogs, including with Bord na Móna, the IFA, the TCCA, environmental nongovernment agencies and, in particular, the individuals and communities who are affected by the requirements of the habitats directive and its implementation in the State;

— work in particular with local interests to find local solutions, based on the report of the Peatlands Forum; and

— prepare a national raised bog SAC management plan, as recommended by Mr. Justice Quirke, and engage, on the basis of such a plan, with the European Commission as a matter of urgency to seek an overall resolution within the terms of the habitats directive;

and further welcomes the decision of Government to enhance the compensation package for affected turf cutters, including a new commitment to introduce greater flexibility in relation to the supply of free turf."

I join Deputy Flanagan in acknowledging the late Paddy Concannon. When I was involved in a Seanad campaign 29 years ago, Paddy Concannon gave me a very good reception when I called to his house in County Roscommon, for which I will always remember him.

I thank Deputy Flanagan for raising this important issue in the House and hope he accepts the Government's bona fides in proposing the amendment. The main difference in substance between his motion and our amendment to it is that we are taking on board the recommendations made in the report of Mr. Justice Quirke which was considered by the Government this morning and published on the website of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht this afternoon. The motion and amendment otherwise share many of the same sentiments.

Mr. Justice Quirke agreed to chair the peatlands forum, which was held over four days in Athlone last week. All communities affected by the cessation of turf cutting on the 53 SAC raised bogs were given an opportunity at this forum to make a submission to Mr. Justice Quirke, and then to discuss the particular circumstances of their bog with a technical committee. This comprised of staff from my Department and Bord na Móna, with the assistance of independent facilitators.

I pay a sincere tribute to Mr. Justice Quirke for taking on this task at short notice and for carrying it out with diligence, notwithstanding the fact that his official retirement took place over the course of the forum. I also pay tribute to all other participants, namely, the IFA, the Turf Cutters and Contractors Association, the Irish Environmental Network and my own staff. Bord na Móna provided an invaluable contribution, as recognised in the judge's report. I thank Mr. Conor Skehan, chairman of the Peatlands Council, who instigated the idea of holding such a forum, together with the team of independent facilitators and the support staff who worked together to ensure the smooth running of the forum. Most importantly, I pay tribute to the representatives from the raised bog communities up and down the country who came to report on their own cases, and who engaged with my staff to see how their issues could be resolved.

As stated by Mr. Justice Quirke, "those most affected by the restrictions are the turf cutting communities who for generations, and in some cases for centuries, have enjoyed ownership, property and turbary rights on the relevant bogs." His report makes sobering reading for all involved in this case. While making the point that it was not his function to adjudicate on the submissions made before, he stated the following, which Deputy Pringle also quoted. "What is undeniable is that there has been a breakdown of communication and a breakdown of trust between the relevant parties which may be difficult to restore." He went on to state that "Mutual recrimination between the State and its citizens cannot be in the national interest and the State must not become embroiled in a quagmire of disputes and legal challenges by its citizens, at a time when it is facing severe sanctions for alleged non-compliance with a European directive arising from the same set of facts and circumstances." The Government agrees with this analysis and we are committed to working with all parties to address the issues of communication and trust, mindful all the time of the commitments we have also given to ensure that we are in compliance with the requirements of the EU habitats directive.

The first recital in both motions tonight states that Dáil Éireann "recognises the innate value of Ireland's unique natural habitat and the necessity to protect if from harm." There is no more unique habitat in Europe than our remaining examples of functioning raised bog. We are legally bound to protect the relatively small amount of raised bog habitat remaining in Ireland that we have nominated as special areas of conservation. In effect, we are asking that the communities affected by the designations sacrifice, or change, part of their cultural heritage, so that we maintain a representative sample of this very valuable part of our natural heritage for future generations. Not to do so would be unforgivable. This then places an obligation on the State to compensate fairly or otherwise look after the needs of those whose traditional rights are being curtailed. This Government is committed to that principle.

If there is one overall message in the motions before the House and in the report from Mr. Justice Quirke, it is that things could have been so different if we had confronted our difficulties when we had the time, instead of leaving it until the last minute. The habitats directive was agreed by the European Community over 20 years ago with the objective of protecting endangered European habitats and species. It applies to all member states and each must meet its own responsibilities under its terms. It was very clear from the earliest days of the directive's implementation in Ireland, and indeed during the period leading up to it, that there would be significant implications for turf cutters on Ireland's raised bogs, over and above almost any other category of landowner in Ireland.

Significant education and consultation campaigns were put in place as the directive began to be introduced in Ireland. These included numerous local consultation exercises as well as much national level negotiation with interests such as the IFA. Action was taken to end commercial cutting on raised bogs, and the voluntary bog purchase scheme was put in place. However, in the face of opposition to ending cutting by domestic cutters, the then Government introduced the ten year derogation. It was then conveniently forgotten. Everyone else forgot about the issue and hoped that it would go away, but it did not. Meanwhile, scientific studies demonstrated that there was continued and dramatic decline in the health of our raised bogs. These reports should have galvanised everyone to action, but again nothing happened.

By the time everyone was forced to confront the issue, due to the threat of major fines in the European Court of Justice and further reputational damage to Ireland, there were no answers and there was no understanding, no communication and no trust in which to build a shared solution.

An interdepartmental committee was established in 2009 to consider the issues in the run up to the ending of the derogation. However, the response to its report was inadequate and the last Government did not provide the certainty or the route map to deliver the long-term solution that was necessary.

When this Government came into office, we had found that we had already run out of road, with legal proceedings already taking their course against Ireland. We were determined to take a different route. While we were obliged to bring Ireland into compliance with EU law, we also put in place new responses to address both the concerns of individuals and the wider need to build a shared future and understanding. These responses included compensation schemes, relocation schemes, and most importantly the consultative Peatlands Council, under independent chairman Mr. Conor Skehan, to bring all parties together to build that shared understanding. This has been a difficult process. That is why, on the suggestion of Mr. Skehan, the Government asked Mr. Justice Quirke to chair the peatlands forum last week.

I believe that the forum may be seen as the critical initiative where we begin to turn the tide of mistrust that was evident in its plenary sessions. We saw some significant progress at the plenary sessions and in the technical sessions, as well as in the other bilateral meetings that took place over the four days.

Following the first day's proceedings, Mr. Justice Quirke took the initiative to see if some manoeuvrability could be delivered through developing a national plan for our protected SAC raised bogs. This is the central recommendation in Mr. Justice Quirke's report. Therefore, the Government decided today to develop a national SAC raised bog management plan, which will set out how we propose to manage our SAC raised bog resource. In the context of such a plan, it may be possible to bring some limited flexibility for a few of the most difficult bogs where there are no alternative solutions. It should be stressed that this can only be done within the framework of the EU habitats directive.

The bar is set very high. Any case made must show that it stands up in terms of being for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, and any such proposals must obtain the consent of the European Commission. It is also clear that there will be a requirement for compensatory habitat to meet the requirements of the directive. In fact, the preparation of this plan will require the closest ongoing consultation with the European Commission. Such a plan will not be acceptable and will have no credibility if cutting continues this year on the affected bogs. I therefore appeal for patience and understanding as we develop the plan over the coming year. Furthermore, it would be wrong to expect that such a plan could allow any cutting in the future on more than a very small number of bogs. Nonetheless, it holds out the possibility of finding solutions in those cases where none appears credible at present, although further work needs to be done first to exhaust the possibility of alternatives.

While that overall plan is being prepared, I believe we are now in a position to begin to roll out solutions, over the coming months, to many of the communities who came to the forum. There are legal, planning and land purchase issues involved in many of these cases and it will take some time to deliver new relocation bogs as we work through all these issues. We have models which work. In both Clara, County Offaly and Mountbellew in Galway, my Department and Bord na Móna have worked with the local community to put in place re-location bogs. I understand that the former Member of this House, Mr. Paul Connaughton Snr., who raised this issue on several occasions in the House, explained at the forum how a relocation project was developed for his community. More importantly, he explained the journey from mistrust to trust as this was delivered over the past six months.

As starkly illustrated in the Quirke report, this is a journey we must replicate in many more communities. This is the challenge ahead of us. For my part, I can assure the House that we will make all efforts within our resources to build that trust. Referring to the fact that the work on which we are embarking will take time, Mr. Justice Quirke stated:

Innovation is required because resolution of these difficulties cannot be achieved within the time presently available to the parties. Some means must be found to overcome this problem.

In response to this need to respond innovatively, the Government is improving both the monetary compensation package and providing additional flexibility in terms of turf delivery as relocation issues are sorted out. The Government has, therefore, agreed to enhance the compensation package as follows> The annuity payment will be increased from €1,000 to €1,500 per annum, index linked, for 15 years; an additional once-off incentive payment of €500 for qualifying cutters will be provided this year where agreements are signed with my Department; the quantity of cut turf to be delivered, as an interim measure, to those opting for relocation will be increased, from 10 tonnes to 15 tonnes. Extra turf will be also provided where multiple users have sourced from one plot and where the total cut is more than 15 tonnes per annum. Claimants must provide evidence to back up the claim, and this issue will be discussed further with interested parties. The enhanced package will be available to those who already applied to date under the schemes. I can assure the House that my Department will work with all individuals and communities to ensure those who are entitled to have turf in their grates continue to do so.

I have also directed my Department to put in place measures to expedite payments to applicants, subject to proportionate checks and appropriate audit controls. Most applicants with signed forms, and who have certified their compliance with the requirements of the scheme, will receive their payment in the coming weeks. The only way in which we can get ourselves out of the current situation is to work hard together, as Government, turf-cutters, community leaders, landowners and non-governmental organisations, to find solutions to our problems. The work of the IFA and the TCCA has been invaluable in helping us all find a way around what appear like insurmountable challenges. I am committed to working closely with them, and with all groups represented on the Peatlands Council, including the environmental non-governmental groups, to work through all the issues in the months and years ahead. Our focus will be on those citizens who are being expected to bear the burden of these measures on behalf of the wider community.

I thank Deputy Luke ‘Ming' Flanagan for putting this motion to the House. It is opportune, before the turf-cutting season normally commences. I also thank Deputies Pringle and Clare Daly for their contributions. In response to Deputy Clare Daly, regarding consultation and my involvement in that process, there has been more consultation and communication in the past 12 months than in the previous 20 years. The first action I took when I got this job was to go to Roscommon and Galway and take a helicopter ride with Deputies Luke ‘Ming' Flanagan and Naughten and the chairman of the TCCA, Mr. Michael Fitzmaurice. Unfortunately, there was not room in the helicopter-----

I was driving around in the car.

-----and Deputy Feighan was driving around in the car after us.

In a bog-mobile.

No-one can accuse me of not engaging with these people. We then set up the Peatlands Council and there has been constant communication in the past 12 months. This Government cannot be accused of ignoring the wishes of these people.

We have made significant progress since. I thank everybody concerned because I know how difficult this is for those cutting turf on bogs. The one bog, unfortunately for me, that was designated in Kerry was where my great-grandfather, grand-uncles and grandfather, and now cousins, cut. I must meet these people on a regular basis. It is not nice every Saturday when I have my clinic in Listowel, which is very busy, to see a large number of people on the square. Even the week before last, they came all the way from Galway.

It is not easy for any of us. This is a difficult issue and I am doing my best to have it resolved. I was given this challenge and I intend to see it through. However, it needs co-operation between the turf-cutters, the landowners, the contractors, Government and, more importantly, the Commission. I was delighted that last week Deputy Luke ‘Ming' Flanagan went to meet the Commission. That engagement should have happened years ago. The Deputy now has a clear understanding of the challenges that any Government would face.

At the end of January 2011, the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, got a letter of formal notice from the Commission stating clearly that it was not happy with the way Ireland was transposing the directive into Irish law and that the Commissioner was starting proceedings to take Ireland to court. In June, we got a reasoned opinion. This is really far advanced. I do not wish to scare anybody, but I believe the Commission will move, if we do not move, on payment of up to €9 million a year to Europe when we can find alternatives.

I thank Deputy Luke ‘Ming' Flanagan for moving this motion and I commend the Government's amendment to the House, with the additional commitments to act on Mr. Judge Quirke's recommendations.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. I have in common with Deputy Luke ‘Ming' Flanagan the fact that the bog in my area of Mountbellew is one of those in the SAC area that has been designated to be taken over at the end of this year. As much as I am an elected representative, I am fully aware of the issues and the hurt, anger and mistrust of people about this issue. When I first got wind of this news I was 16 years old and at that stage in my life, the idea that we would not be going back to the bog was not the worst news I ever got. It is amazing 14 years later how my opinion has changed drastically.

My party has been in government for 12 months and this is an issue that has come to bear on us. There were ten years in which nothing whatsoever was done with this issue. Unfortunately, among many of those whom I represent there was a false belief that this issue would go away and that if we did nothing, the European Commission would not come back knocking on the door to see what we were doing about it. Unfortunately, that is not the case and in the past few years, it has come back to bite us in a big way.

Many Deputies elected to this Dáil probably do not fully understand the issue. The people I represent are honest decent people who have been cutting turf for generations and who had hoped to pass on the bogs to their sons and daughters and their families coming down the line. That was the aim. None of these people believed they were breaking the law or doing anything wrong. Everything that I have done in the past 12 months is to represent those people. My concerns were never with the Government or with the Commission; they were with the rights of those people to cut turf. We have been backed into a corner and we have had to come up with solutions to this. The one issue that has been raised in this regard, and towards which we are working, is relocation.

Relocation is a solution we have made happen in our bog in Mountbellew which takes in Carrownnagappal and Curraghlehannagh bogs. The issue here is that people want to cut turf. There are many issues with this. It is not as simple as saying we have found a bog down the road, let us move there, job done. A lot more work goes into it.

I thank Dr. Conor Skehan for the work he has put in. The biggest problem we faced when beginning the process 12 months ago, as Deputy Clare Daly said, was mistrust. People did not trust the Government, Departments or officials. All they had been receiving for years was threatening letters stating what would happen to them if they did not get off bogs, which was a ridiculous way to treat anybody. Some were elderly persons who were cutting a few hoppers of turf to heat their house for the winter. To see them receiving threatening letters from people they did not know was ridiculous.

The first thing we did was to bring Dr. Skehan to our bog. Deputy Clare Daly said she had met many of the people affected in town hall meetings. We did not meet in the town hall, rather we met on the bog. At 10 a.m. on a Saturday morning we met our neighbours, cousins and friends. We first had to explain to them what was going on, why they were receiving threatening letters and why they, as honest and decent individuals, were being treated as if they were criminals, which was completely unacceptable. It is to Dr. Skehan's credit that we began to build trust. However, it was not done on one morning. It took many months to get people to believe they could trust the Government, the State and the officials on what they wanted to do.

Many issues arose. What Deputy Flanagan has said is true. Of those involved on 55 bogs, we understand many of them can be relocated, but if people are to be relocated under the new proposal, every case must be seen as unique. For example, we were never going to move to a bog many miles away. Therefore, the first point is that people want to be relocated to bog close to them. The second concerns the quality of turf available. We were not going to move from a bog which provided a very good source of fuel to one where the quality was not as good. The third and most important point is that we had to work with those who wanted to move and those who wanted compensation. There are those who genuinely want compensation and it is their right to seek it. In that process which has taken well over six months to complete there has been a lot of hard work and consultation which had been sadly lacking for ten years.

Deputy Thomas Pringle said he was afraid this issue might be linked with the upcoming referendum on the fiscal compact treaty. I assure him that issue was not discussed once in recent months in Mountbellew or Newbridge for that matter. I know the Leas-Cheann Comhairle knows many of those about whom I am talking. The fiscal compact treaty was not mentioned. It was about one simple issue - cutting turf. It was about the ability to cut turf, store it and bring it home, nothing more.

My father would certainly not have moved if the conditions were not right. We had to get the people to trust us on this issue. We had to tell them how the process was going to work. They had been let down for ten or 12 years by a decision we had to take on board. If we are going to get through this, we have to work together. I acknowledge the role played by the TCCA because the issue had continued for a long time. The TCCA had continued to raise it and inform people about what was happening. We were getting to a stage at which, every day, someone was receiving a threatening letter stating what would happen if he or she did not comply with the law, which was ridiculous. In the past six months, however, we have built trust that this can and will work. I am happy to say that in the past four weeks machines have moved into the bog at Killasolan just outside Mountbellew to begin to renovate it. Two weeks ago we brought the people who had signed contracts to their new location. We have now decided that they will be with us every step we take. They will be the final judges; they are the ones who are telling us whether we are doing it right or wrong. We wanted to show them that by taking a leap of faith and moving with us we would see work being done.

I would not stand over anyone's decision to relocate if he or she did not believe the Government was serious about renovating the bog to which he or she was moving. As I said, we brought people there two weeks ago, with Dr. Skehan and Mr. Conor Ó Raghallaigh of the National Parks and Wildlife Service present to supervise the work which is continuing. The hope is the people concerned will be able to cut turf there the year after next, which is why I welcome the increase in the allocation of turf. Approximately 35 to 40 people moved as part of the relocation and every case is different in that some cut for themselves, some for their family and some for relations. That is what will have to happen from now on.

I welcome Mr. Justice Quirke's report and the TCCA submission as they have a very good understanding of the position on the majority of bogs and of how the process will work and be implemented. However, it has not been easy up to this point and it will not be easy in the future. For every bog, there are 50, 60 or 70 people, all with different requirements and who will cut different amounts of turf. We will have to ensure we deal with them on an individual basis and understand their concerns. For too long, we did not bring people with us and they were ignored. They were not told the truth. We have to change this.

I want to see everyone working together, whether it be the Peatlands Council, Bord na Móna, the National Parks and Wildlife Servide, the Department and the TCCA. The only solution is to find the places to which people can relocate and set out a clear management plan for these bogs. The most important point is to keep people informed of what we are doing. A good start was made in Athlone last week which will have helped to build trust. However, we cannot afford to continue for another six or 12 months without further consultation. The more we keep people informed, the more they will feel they will have an opportunity to engage in the process.

I thank Mr. Gerry McNally of Bord na Mona whom we found to be extremely helpful in sourcing new bogs and learning how we could develop them. It is through that level of expertise and through such individuals in State bodies that we will be able to push on and genuinely solve the problem.

I acknowledge that relocation will be tougher in some instances and nigh on impossible in others. We will have to work with the Commission on these issues. These are issues in south Galway at Barroughter and Clonmoylan bogs and probably at Mouds bog in County Kildare. The people concerned cannot be ignored. The task for them and the Government is tougher, but they cannot be ignored. Whatever we can do to solve the problems faced must be done and should be done immediately, where possible. In the case of the bogs near Mountbellew - Carrownagappal and Curraghlehannagh bogs - we were able to find out quickly where the new bog was located and move to it.

This has been a thorny issue for the past 12 months, but it had been ignored for 12 years. We have done everything we can to restore the trust of the people involved, which has not been easy. However, I have seen at first-hand how relocation can work. Let us be very clear: it is not an easy path to follow. The most important people are the turf cutters - my family, friends and neighbours - and they must be consulted every step of the way. If we are to do anything, we must build trust among all those involved. Trust had broken down, including last summer owing to the way departmental officials had treated those who were cutting turf, which was wrong. We need to start from the base provided by the forum held last week in Athlone, to use what we achieved in Mountbellew and began at Clara. Let us push on from here and show that relocation can work, but let us not forget those who are working in very difficult bogs and who have as much of a right to cut turf in another bog as anyone else.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this issue. My colleague, Deputy Troy, would like to be here as he has been very involved in this issue, but, unfortunately, he cannot be present owing to another engagement.

We should go back to the beginning of this saga. In 1997 the rainbow coalition Government signed the habitats directive into law. I can remember the Dáil debate held at the time on the issue with the then Minister, Mr. Michael D. Higgins, now President. When Ms Síle de Valera and I entered the Department, we were both involved in the debate on the SAC issue, central to which was the raised bogs issue.

It is absolutely true to say we never received a ten year derogation from the authorities in Brussels because they were never going to agree to one. What we did - what Governments need to do in such instances - was we travelled to Brussels to tell the officials we would offer a ten year derogation to domestic bog cutters and arrange to remove the commercial turf cutters who accounted for a figure of 96% of the effort, if memory serves me correctly. However, the European Union stated it was not going to extend an official derogation, but that it would not interfere in providing for the introduction of a ten year period. I regret that within that ten years the Department was not more proactive in doing what the previous and current Governments have done to resolve the issue. I have recognised for many years, and I am glad there has been a conversion on the Government side, that the European Union would take Ireland to court if there was not conservation of raised bog. I am pleased there appears to be a consensus on all sides that raised bogs must be conserved. I understand the proposals put forward by the Turf Cutters and Contractors Association recognise this and also that if any of the designated bogs continue to be cut, the preserved bog would be supplemented by compensatory bog that has not been designated to date and which would be of equal quality.

The elements of the plan that are being put forward now were put on the table some years ago, these being that one could have a choice between cash, relocation or turf delivered to the door. An argument arose about the duration of these compensatory arrangements and the amount. Some progress was made, particularly in County Offaly, about which my colleague, Deputy Barry Cowen, will speak. Even though as Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs I had no ministerial responsibility for this area, I was involved in discussions two years ago with various interests with a view to progressing the issue. When I was Minister at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for a short time last year, the officials and I came up with the concept of Comhairle na bPortach. It a nicety to give these organisations an Irish language title, although it is now called the Peatlands Council. The great advantage of the Irish language is that peat and turf are the same in Irish. A portach is a bog and móin is turf. To a country person, peat does not sound as homely as turf but we will not get into the semantics of language. I was preparing a memorandum for Government, a copy of which I kept until the day the new Government assumed office and a copy of which the Minister will find in the files of the Department.

The Deputy was obviously confident about getting back.

No, this was after the election. I am talking about the meeting of the previous Government the day before the new Government came into power. What I was trying to achieve - I ran out of rope - was a doubling of compensation from €1,000 to €2,000, which I note is still only €1,500, but after a long haggle I believe it will be €2,000.

It is €2,000 in the first year.

The Minister said the annuity payment will be increased from €1,000 to €2,000 per annum, index-linked, for 15 years.

The Deputy should continue reading.

An additional once-off incentive payment of €500 for qualifying cutters will be provided this year where agreements are signed with the Department.

Even with one's eyes closed, one gets €500.

Yes, but if the negotiations drag on one does not get it. Why not be cut and dried about it and just give the €2,000? I am pleased the Minister has obviously read my memo and taken on board two of my suggestions. I regret the time-----

If the Deputy was Minister in the Department for six months, he would have it solved.

Absolutely. I am glad the Minister did the same eye-balling. The officials were telephoning me every day to send a letter to Brussels but I refused to do so. I said the only letter I would send back would be one much more negative than their letter. They took their chances with the Minister, who would be more moderate than me on these issues in terms of standing our ground. I was told at that time that it would not be possible to cut turf last year, when it was. It was wrong advice, I did not believe it, and I am glad the Minister succeeded on following through on what I had been doing in terms of not stopping people from cutting turf last year. That was a right decision for the Minister to make and on which I commend him. Progress has been made.

Will the Minister clarify whether the Peatlands Council will remain in place or was it a four day event?

That was the forum.

Will the Peatlands Council remain in place?

It will remain in place because we are preparing a national peatlands strategy for bogs that are not designated in order that all bogs can be looked after and are not allowed to become dumps or to be abused.

We would all agree with those sentiments. One of the issues of concern to all of us and one of the reasons people involved in turf cutting have been insistent in protecting their rights is that the Irish Peatlands Council or-----

Exactly. The IPCC has a clear objective to stop the cutting of all turf.

Is that the Peatlands Council?

Not the Minister's council but the NGOs.

Some other council.

That is clearly stated in its policies. Therefore, everybody who deals with it knows that while we could do a deal today, wrap it up, think we had done our bit and have the conservation the Minister is talking about, what is guaranteed is that the NGOs would be on the next plane to Brussels saying they had achieved so much, and would urge going for the blanket bogs and the-----

I have to call Deputies Cowen, McLellan and Martin Ferris. This is all very interesting but time is running out.

Just to clarify, I made it clear to Mr. Potočnik that this was what was on the table and he agreed. I take his word that this is it and if we can do what we are supposed to do, that will be it.

With no disrespect, the problem is that the Friends of the Irish Environment will never rest happy. People come and go in Brussels.

They are not in Government.

They will continue going to Brussels, and this has been the problem from the beginning.

If we do what we are supposed to do we will-----

I must call Deputy Barry Cowen.

I ask the Minister not to underestimate them. They have a cosán dearg beaten to Brussels.

All I need is the Deputy's support.

I must call Deputy Cowen.

I wish to provide some background to the debate. I acknowledge and pay tribute to Deputy Luke ‘Ming' Flanagan for tabling the motion and the Minister for his response which goes some way without going the whole way. The real background to the debate concerns issues in regard to fuel poverty and rural incomes.

Rural household incomes in the midlands are 9.4% below the national average. The majority of affected bogs are located in counties with the lowest disposable income. This must be a central factor when making arrangements to stop cutting turf. Turf is a very inexpensive source of fuel, being up to 60% cheaper than oil. The cost of turf is in the labour.

A cessation policy will expose another significant number of households to fuel poverty. It is estimated that between 4,000 and 5,000 households will be directly effected by outright cessation. Many at risk of fuel poverty face costs of converting existing heating systems and would need to purchase more expensive fuels. Their needs must be given priority. We have had derogations for ten years with further derogations for certain bogs for one year at a time since, with 75 natural heritage areas concluding at the end of 2013.

Last year, during the course of the general election when the issue was live in rural and midland constituencies, we had wild abandon from certain Members of the Minister's Party and the Labour Party who made cynical promises calling for the ban to be lifted without acknowledging the templates for resolution that had just been put in place. I acknowledge he has now used those in instances and has provided for improvements in those templates. However, I remind the Minister there were cynical calls and much politics played by the Government side this time last year.

As a public representative in recent years, especially as a councillor, I have dealt with three different classes of turf cutters in efforts to resolve these issues with real and workable solutions. The first are those who have or had title to turf banks or turbary rights and who cut for their heating needs annually. Second, there are those who did not necessarily have title or turbary rights but who cut annually for their families on lands or bogs known as commonage. Third, there are those families whose area of bog extends well beyond what might be expected to be a life time area of ground for cutting. As stated, one acre of bog equals roughly 60 years supply. While some of those involved are commercial cutters they are serving the needs of those who have no access to turf, which must be acknowledged.

In my experience, a solution for the first category has been available for the past six to 12 months. An example in this regard is the bog in my own area of Clara and The Island in respect of which families and turf cutters have engaged through Irish Rural Link with the OPW, the IFA, Bord na Móna and Coillte and come up with credible and flexible solutions in the form of an alternative bog four or five miles away. In many instances, the bogs given to these familes are even more productive and will be longer lasting than were those in which they were cutting in the first instance.

It is a good example.

In some cases, the option of funding towards conversion was accepted. I accept the right of people to do that too.

The category of cutter on commonage land, such as in Ballinough, has in my experience adhered to the directive but has never been compensated for so doing. They, too, need to be brought into the fold based on their history of cutting on unencumbered lands. They should be offered the same compensatory options and rights. As I stated, the ground on which they cut is not contested and they should, therefore, where they can provide the relevant proof of cutting over time, be entitled to compensation.

The third category must be recognised as an asset which deserves to be compensated on a per acre basis. We should not be seeking to allow only one lifetime of cutting for one family, which does not take account of historic value and ownership. Turf cutting must be recognised as valuable farm or off-farm income. While what the Minister has brought forward goes some way towards achieving this, it does not go far enough.

We must compensate acre for acre. A person who has ten acres of bog is entitled to ten acres compensatory bog. They should not be entitled to only one acre of bog to provide for their family. This does not take account of the historic value of an acreage to a particular family and the many generations before them. These people must be properly compensated. What the Minister has proposed this evening is the bones of a deal. It goes much further than what was previously proposed. The three categories that need to be considered are those who in places such as Mountbellew as mentioned by Deputy Connaughton provide for their immediate families and those in my constituency of Clara who came together to find a solution in respect of provision for themselves and their immediate families; those who cut on commonage and have been left behind because they do not have the type of representation which many others involved in this argument down through the years have or have had and, those who have large holdings who, like it or lump it, are entitled to like for like compensation.

If compensation is to be monetary then there must be comprehensive analysis of land based on the income derived by families in recent years. It must be remembered that these people provide a source of fuel which keeps so many people out of the fuel poverty trap.

I call Deputy McLellan whom I understand is sharing time with Deputy Ferris.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I commend Deputy Luke ‘Ming' Flanagan and his colleagues on bringing forth this motion.

Like others, Sinn Féin understands, appreciates and supports the need to protect our natural habitat. Likewise, we support the right of domestic turf cutters to work their own bogs. Sinn Féin will be supporting this motion, which provides the basis for a comprehensive and reasonable solution to the current impasse. The options proposed by the Turf Cutters and Contractors Association, TCCA, have the potential to serve the best interests of local turf cutters while ensuring the State's full compliance with the habitats directive.

This is a hugely emotive and important issue countrywide. People in Cavan, Meath, Galway, Kerry, Kildare, Mayo, Sligo, Offaly, Laois, Roscommon, Tipperary, Westmeath, Longford, Monaghan, Clare and the surrounding areas are affected. Tradition, heritage, natural and cultural, economy, fuel, energy, heat and a way of life are some of the factors at play. The Turf Cutters and Contractors Assocation, TCCA, with others, has done considerable work to find reasonable solutions for its members and Government. I welcome the Minister's acceptance of the Quirke report which for the first time confirms the undeniable breakdown of communication and trust between the relevant parties, which may be difficult to resolve. It has long been recognised that consecutive Governments have failed in their obligations to ordinary turf cutters. It is hoped we will now see complete and comprehensive engagement with local turf cutters on a case by case to ensure reasonable agreements are made in all individual cases.

There is without doubt potential for a win-win scenario, thus turf cutters can continue to cut turf and the State can meet its obligations to Europe. This is what we need without delay.

I commend Deputy Luke ‘Ming' Flanagan and all others associated with tabling this motion tonight. This motion reflects the genuine and continued commitment of rural Deputies to addressing issues affecting rural Ireland. I support this motion and the proposals made by the Turf Cutters and Contractors Association, TCCA, in regard to the accommodation of turbary rights with the need to protect the natural habitat.

This motion stresses the need to balance conservation as laid down in directives with the traditional right of people to utilise local natural resources, as they have done for a long time without causing serious environmental damage. Key to all of this, and indeed other issues which are currently the cause of great concern in rural communities, is that faceless bureaucrats, often not even resident in or familiar with any part of this country, are laying down decrees with regard to important issues. I have witnessed this many times before, including in regard to the fishing communities where a traditional way of life and a source of great potential for development has been restricted and, some would argue, condemned to slow death by the surrender of control to bureaucrats who are not interested in the needs of fishing communities and may in fact be outright hostile to them. The Minister needs no reminding of what happened to drift salmon in our constituency and the consequences in that regard.

The Minister will be aware of the anger that this has been generated in relation to the Moanveanlagh raised bog outside Listowel. It is the only bog in Kerry to which the ban is to be applied. However, turf cutters there have insisted they will not be prevented from cutting turf after 1 April. The Minister referred earlier to ongoing pickets outside his constituency office. Many of those picketing are personal friends of the Minister, which gives some indication of how deeply angry people are about this. Many of them are, perhaps, Fine Gael supporters.

The point has been made by the Kerry Turf Cutters Association that the State has refused to engage with them despite that they have come up with detailed and imaginative proposals which they believe form the basis of a solution, taking into account the various concerns and interests. This is again illustrative of the lack of engagement with communities. I am pleased to note that the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, has welcomed the association's proposals on relocation claims and has directed his officials to study them .

I welcome the Minister's acceptance of the Qurike report on the national plan. This matter can only be resolved by people sitting down together to find a solution which takes into account the rights of people involved in this area for many years. This matter can be resolved. The Minister has the power to do it.

We have been doing exactly what the Deputy is suggesting for the past year.

Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 7 March 2012.
Top
Share