Nature Restoration Law and Irish Agriculture: Statements

Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Deputy Charlie McConalogue)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the proposed nature restoration regulation here today and in particular on how it interacts with agriculture. I have seen some commentary both inside and outside this House in recent weeks. There has been a real attempt in some quarters to create fear and concern among farmers. I am here today to spell out the facts as they are, the current state of play and how I am working to protect our farm families while meeting our responsibilities to protect our environment and biodiversity. I recognise this is an emotive issue for many but it is not helpful to peddle fear with rumour, hearsay and innuendo. Facts are the only things that matter here.

As Deputies will know the lead Department for Ireland's engagement on the proposed regulation is the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. I am working closely with this Department and I am taking a leading role at European level with the Council of Agriculture Ministers where along with my EU colleagues we are making headway in ensuring the law is workable for our farmers and land type.

To set out the context of my statement, I want to start by outlining some facts. As we know, this House declared a biodiversity crisis in 2019. Research published just last week shows that almost half of the species on earth are in population decline. Despite long-standing environmental legislation in Europe and Ireland, these losses continue. It is in this context that the European Commission has drafted its proposals for a nature restoration regulation.

Our farmers and fishers have always been, and continue to be, custodians of our environment. It is important to recognise the great work done by these farmers and fishermen in recent years to support biodiversity objectives. Nobody has a greater role in protecting and enhancing our environment than our farmers and fishers. They see the realities of climate change first-hand and its impacts on the everyday running of their businesses.

There has been a realisation by everyone in society in recent times that our nature and biodiversity is under pressure and in decline. What many thought was highly robust has proven to be more fragile. We have just one nature and we must protect it. It is the basis of everything we do as a sector and a society. Farmers are absolutely leading from the front on this ambition. The evidence is real and tangible. Let us consider the recent engagement by farmers, with 46,000 applying to join the agri-climate rural environment scheme, ACRES, our flagship €1.5 billion environmental scheme. With thanks to my Cabinet colleagues, I was able to approve entry to the scheme for these farmers, all of whom are implementing biodiversity actions on their farms. To put this in context, almost half a million individual trees will be planted by these farmers during the contract period. A further 2,000 km of hedging will be planted. Over 11,000 owl boxes have been installed and 270,000 ha of commonage is being managed correctly for biodiversity. These are only a few of the actions committed to by farmers under their ACRES plans.

Another example of farmers’ engagement is the Burren scheme, funded by my Department for many years and as an EU LIFE project, recognised as best in class across the EU for its approach to working with farmers to conserve and promote biodiversity. This approach, one of payment for results and working collaboratively with farmers, has formed the basis of a significant move to results-based, collective actions by farmers within ACRES. We are at the forefront of Europe in this approach to agri-environment schemes. I am deeply committed to the approach of working with and supporting farmers. I believe this is evidence of farmers being very much engaged with biodiversity. These actions show that farmers are actively supportive of nature restoration.

However, it is clear that farmers and fishers are concerned at the potential impact of the regulation on their livelihoods, and on how they will farm and fish in the future. That is something we must recognise and work with. It is something that I have prioritised in my engagement across government and with the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan.

The proposed regulation is one of the most extensive regulations to come from the EU and will impact across all of society, not just agriculture. The headline ambition of the regulation is to restore at least 20% of the EU’s land and sea by 2030, and all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050. It proposes targets for restoration across a wide range of land uses, including rural and urban environments, rivers, forests, peatlands, wetlands, marine and all its activities. Leadership is an important element here, something I will refer to again later.

The proposed regulation will also build on existing national and EU strategies and policies which support environmental sustainability in Ireland, including the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, and Food Vision 2030. Three of the nine specific objectives for the current Common Agricultural Policy focus on the environment and climate. Food Vision 2030 focuses on the three pillars of sustainability in the agrifood sector - economic, environmental and social sustainability. Each of these pillars is equally important. Along with our CAP strategic plan, this strategy supports the delivery of the ambition of the proposed regulation by engaging primary producers in sustainable food systems and the delivery of ecosystem services including carbon sequestration, reduction of emissions and support for biodiversity.

Since the publication of the European Commission’s proposal in June 2022, my Department has been working closely with colleagues in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage who are leading co-ordination of Ireland’s position on the proposed nature restoration regulation. We are also working closely with other Departments across government to analyse what the proposal means for Ireland, to identify potential challenges and to contribute meaningfully to the Council discussions on this matter. The proposals have evolved at pace in the Council.

I have taken a leadership role in Europe with my ministerial colleagues to make sure the regulations can work from an Irish point of view. The proposed text is subject to continual evolution. This evolution has been important and necessary. We have worked to ensure that the EU Council has taken account of the Irish situation. I now expect our MEPs to work hard to bring the European Parliament position much closer to that of the Council.

Article 9 in the proposal focuses on agricultural ecosystems, introducing targets for increasing trends of farmland bird populations, grassland butterflies, stocks of organic carbon in mineral soils and high-diversity landscape features. Ireland is already delivering action towards these objectives. For example, under the CAP, we are incentivising increasing cover of high-diversity landscape features through several interventions. In simple terms, hedges and space for nature are being recognised and rewarded through what is called an eco-scheme payment and we know that we have a high percentage of this area on Irish farms through our hedges and scrub areas. Farmers no longer need to reduce scrub areas to maximise payments under farm supports.

Article 9(4) proposes legally binding targets for restoration of drained organic soils under agricultural management, a proportion of which must be achieved through rewetting. This target has received significant attention in recent weeks. The current Council proposals set the following minimum targets for restoration of drained peatland soils under agricultural management: 30% of such areas by 2030, of which at least a quarter must be rewetted; 40% by 2040, of which at least half must be rewetted; and 50% by 2050, of which at least half must be rewetted. For Ireland, based on current estimates, this would set a 2050 requirement to restore just over 166,000 ha with just over 83,000 ha of this to be specifically restored through rewetting techniques. The flexibilities I fought for within the Council’s proposal allow for delivery of this ambition on land under a variety of current uses, and not just agricultural areas. Restoration can take many forms and this will be further expanded in our national restoration plan.

Rewetting is one of many tools to meet our restoration commitments. Under the Council proposals for the regulation, the extent of rewetting required would be at the member state’s discretion. This provides significant flexibility and, when combined with provisions to include peat extraction areas and other land use areas in the restoration accounting, it means that under the Council’s proposals Irish agricultural production is not expected to be significantly adversely affected, with State lands available to contribute almost all of this commitment. Further to this, nationally, Ireland has already set peatland restoration targets in our Climate Action Plan 2023 and has shown ambition to achieve targets beyond the minimums outlined in the Council’s proposals for the nature restoration regulation. The Climate Action Plan has committed to rehabilitation of 77,000 ha of Bord na Móna lands by 2030. Combined with action already committed under EU LIFE programmes, our CAP plan and other existing initiatives, this will achieve the restoration ambition for 2030 without the need for any new incentives.

Significantly, the European Council has proposed to incorporate a stepwise approach to the delivery of the 2050 and interim targets under the proposed regulation. This is an important element which Ireland has supported in the Council working party meetings.

Such an approach will allow member states, including Ireland, to review progress at regular intervals with the opportunity to revise delivery mechanisms based on advances in scientific and technical knowledge and experiences from implementation. The value of this approach is that, although the proposed regulation sets ambitions for 25 years in the future, it does not tie Ireland to plans developed at a single point in time. It would enshrine within the legal text the flexibility for member states to adjust and amend their approaches as our environmental, economic and societal demands evolve. This approach would allow Ireland to use additional findings from national research and engagement to inform the mid- and long-term delivery of the ambitions in the proposed regulation.

I must stress that regardless of the final adopted version of the nature restoration regulation, the obligations to deliver are with the member state, not individuals. Following the adoption of the regulation, Ireland and all EU member states will have two years to develop a national restoration plan. The process of developing a national plan must and will be with farmers and fishers at the centre of this discussion. With this in mind, the Irish Government will, within our national plan, lead delivery of action on State lands. This will be complemented by support for voluntary measures by farmers outside these areas. I am sure many farmers will want to take this option on their farm and we will strongly support them financially to do this. However, let me be clear that I fully expect that State lands will shoulder the majority of the weight.

I mentioned leadership earlier. Irish farmers are leaders in innovation and delivery of agri-environmental action in Europe. Our European innovation partnerships, funded by my Department under CAP, are a perfect example of this, including projects such as FarmPeat and FarmCarbon, which in recent years have been researching and implementing farmed peat management. Ireland leads in Europe in implementing results-based agri-environment programmes such as the Burren, hen harrier and fresh water pearl mussel programmes. These targeted programmes have informed our current national agri-environment scheme, ACRES. These approaches deliver benefits for both the environment and climate, as desired by the proposed regulation. Many of the LIFE projects that are active across the country at the moment, including the Wild Atlantic Nature integrated project, actively engage with and support farmers to implement best practices that are beneficial for the farmer and for biodiversity as well as climate. These projects have been welcomed by farmers, as reflected in the uptake of actions under the various programmes and the level of engagement with knowledge transfer activities.

This all points to the willingness and ability of our farmers to engage and deliver the ambition of the proposed nature restoration regulation. What is required from us, as political leaders, is openness in our communication and engagement during the development of the national plan and to identify complementarity in actions to maximise the impact of financial instruments. Indeed, there will be challenges regarding funding but diverting funds from the current CAP is simply off the table. Those funds are allocated and are absolutely sacrosanct. It is essential that there is adequate funding in place to support farmers in these objectives. It will be crucial that our national plans fully consider all financial instruments available, including the opportunity to leverage private financial investment, to avoid overburdening one or other of the existing financial instruments available.

It is very unfortunate that the current public narrative regarding the proposed regulation is largely negative. However, the ongoing negotiation process at EU level means that the expected final text and the associated impacts are not yet fully visible. We must not lose sight of the opportunity the proposed regulation presents us with. Ireland supports the protection and enhancement of nature and the rationale for its restoration. Ireland, and the EU as a whole, has seen the continued loss of biodiversity and the degradation of habitats and species over many decades. This proposed regulation provides an opportunity for real, transformative change to restore nature, both here and across the wider EU region, but as I have said, it must work with farmers and fishers.

Food production done at the excellent level we do it here and protecting our climate and biodiversity are not mutually exclusive. They can, they are and they will continue to support our farm families and their businesses. We produce food in harmony with nature. That will not change. What we are aiming to do here is step forward that ambition. Farmers and fishers now and into the future will be food producers who are custodians of the land and the environment.

I am glad to have had the opportunity to address and dispel many of the mistruths, and indeed some of the fearmongering and inaccuracies, I have heard in recent weeks. The only source of the definitive facts are through those who are working vigilantly on behalf of Irish agriculture in Europe, that is, Ministers, my Department and my respective colleagues. I am, however, acutely aware of the emotion surrounding this topic and will continue to work closely with farmers and their representatives to ensure the essence of what we do as food producers is protected.

Deputy Claire Kerrane

I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome the fact that we are having this debate because as we all know in this House, this is a matter of real concern for farmers. I think most of us would agree that the way in which this has been handled in recent weeks has been a mess. Reports of what was being looked at in Europe came as a bit of a surprise to a lot of farmers and it was made known to them through the media, which is not the way this should be done. That is how most farmers learned that this debate and vote were taking place at EU level. Communication around all of this has been poor and that is what has led to a lot of confusion, frustration and annoyance on both sides, from farmers and rural communities and from the environmental perspective as well.

The idea of the EU setting binding targets like this on rewetting lands has caused uproar, and rightly so. We have to take a lesson from this. This is a prime example of how not to do climate action. We have to bring farmers with us on climate action and this is not the way to do that. It is also unacceptable that targets would be determined and asked of farmers with zero information on the possible consequences or impacts. As we all know, no impact assessment has been carried out on this. The Minister said there will be a two-year timeframe for our own national plan. I hope he will be able to tell us when closing the debate if an impact assessment will be carried out. That is important. Overall, what we have seen to date in relation to this issue, which is a matter of real concern to farmers, has been the wrong approach and I hope it will not be repeated.

I am also mindful, and the Minister mentioned this himself, of what is being asked of farmers. We are looking at the potential of removing swathes of agricultural land from use, or it certainly looks like we are, and that is of course a really emotive issue. Looking after land is a way of life for farmers. It always has been. It is important that everyone engaging in this conversation is mindful of that and remembers that is the actual fact. This is not the last proposal we are going to have where there will be varying views, where the environmental perspective and the agricultural perspective are different. We have seen that in Europe already as the agricultural committee has been looking at this and it will soon move to the environmental committee. We are going to have to find a middle ground that takes concerns from both sides into account. The voices of farmers and rural communities have to be heard. That is absolutely critical in any decisions that are made at both national and EU level. When it comes to nature restoration, the protection, restoration and enhancement of biodiversity is something we all want. I believe that can be achieved but it can only happen in partnership with farmers and rural communities. If we do not bring farmers with us, we are not going to achieve the targets that will be set.

I welcome that the Minister spoke about the budget for all of this. Questions remain about the budget for nature restoration at EU level.

There is certainly a lack of long-term clear financial support for nature restoration. If we are serious domestically and at EU level about that, we need a financial commitment from the EU that needs to be separate from the CAP. I welcome what the Minister said about that because we cannot keep depending on the CAP. The policy was initially supposed to be about food security. It has become more and more about the environment. This policy cannot do both. I am not sure at its current funding levels whether it can either-or. We cannot keep depending on the CAP to do more and more so I welcome what the Minister said on that because it is important. Regarding nature restoration or anything else relating to climate targets we must meet, we cannot keep asking and expecting farmers to do more with less. It is not sustainable, which is why it is so important that there should be a new funding stream relating to environmental matters that is separate from CAP. This is really important when we are talking about nature restoration.

The Minister has said and it has been widely reported that rewetting will not be mandatory, which I welcome. It is important to tell farmers that so they know. He said there will be sufficient capacity on State-owned lands but I believe State-owned lands will only get us to the 2030 target. We need further clarification on that because, obviously, the plan is going beyond 2030. It is going to 2050 and farmers really need certainty in that regard. A clear roadmap is needed for them. Targets that will be set at EU level and domestically for this must be realistic and achievable and must be set with farmers, not set for them.

The Minister mentioned Bord na Móna, which has undertaken rewetting 86,000 acres of drained peatlands in the midlands. If rewetting is to be voluntary in whatever plan is put forward in Europe and here, this could become an issue for more farmers. Farmers from the midlands came to the House earlier this month to raise concerns with the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association. They have lands adjoining the project site in the midlands and have sought written assurance from Bord na Móna that it will remedy any damage or unintended consequences that may occur as a result of the rewetting project. The farmers have not been given any written assurance. This needs to be examined and there probably needs to be intervention at ministerial level. We must be clear that farmers who are looking for this assurance from Bord na Móna are not looking for compensation. They are not looking for one red cent; they are looking for a written assurance that should there be any unintended consequences from the rewetting on the lands that are now being rewetted, Bord na Móna will commit to remedying them. The farmers who came to Dublin to speak to us earlier this month mentioned land they have farmed all their lives and that they want to be able to pass on to the next generation and, therefore, that issue has to be resolved. That will become more of an issue if rewetting is introduced on a voluntary basis because there will be farmers who will not take it up and will be concerned about the possible impact on their lands so we have to get this right. The issue needs to be resolved to ensure farmers have confidence in the rewetting project undertaken by Bord na Móna.

This is another example of where the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications has to step in. We cannot have him working on his own regarding the environment and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine and his Department working in another way. I include farmers in that as well. The Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications has to come to the table and engage with farmers and farming organisations directly, not to lecture them, particularly farmers, but to listen to them. That is really important.

The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine outlined what he has done to date on this issue but he has also more or less said that this is going to be left to MEPs to bring what they are looking for close to what the Council has outlined. That is all very well and good but only 13 MEPs represent Ireland at EU level and, therefore, I would like to know what more the Minister is going to do because it cannot be left to the MEPs. Some of our MEPs have varying opinions and views on this. It cannot be said that the Minister has done his job at Council level and it is now up to the MEPs to bring the European Parliament up to where the Council is. It is important that he outlines what more he can do.

Could he confirm what the level of engagement with stakeholders will be and what form it will take regarding putting together our national restoration plan because, again, this is really important if we are going to get this right? The targets that will be set have to be set with the farmers and not for them, and we need to get this right. Stakeholder engagement relating to putting together our own plan will be really important. Could the Minister examine the issue facing farmers relating to the rewetting being undertaken by Bord na Móna that has been widely publicised? As they have said themselves, they are not looking for one red cent; they are looking for an assurance regarding their land and it is only fair that they get it. It is important with regard to further rewetting.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. Our planet is facing unprecedented challenge with the loss of biodiversity threatening the very foundation of our ecosystems and the wellbeing of all living things.

Biodiversity is the complex and interconnected ecosystem that is the beating heart of our society and economy. Large swathes of it face destruction and extinction. We must all act to protect nature. Our future and that of future generations depends on it. On that, there must be no question. This cannot be a question of "if"; it must be a question of "how" we do it.

The nature restoration regulation has the potential to be an important part of that "how". It must be fit for purpose, inclusive, provide for a just transition and pathways instead of cliff edges and effectively communicated and resourced. The regulation is a work in progress. There are significant concerns regarding its provisions. Some concerns are misplaced or misrepresented by powerful vested interests that want to maintain the status quo. They cannot be entertained. They must be challenged and faced down. Other concerns are earnestly held. Farmers and rural communities are concerned about the implications for their land and livelihoods. To dismiss these, in some cases, with contempt, is not acceptable. We need a process that will engage, explain, listen, amend, improve and move forward. We need a Government that will lead.

The nature restoration regulation must be salvaged. It will need to be amended to make it fit for purpose. The Minister has confirmed that there are proposed amendments at European level before the environment committee and the Council of Ministers that may help to move things forward, and I hope they do. We need a regulation that not only addresses the crisis in biodiversity but also ensures fair outcomes for those who will be most affected. The value we place on our ecosystem must be reflected in how we value those who are charged with protecting it. We need pathways, not cliff edges. We need real consultative and engaging processes that include those who are the custodians of our land - our farmers and rural communities. It is essential that any strategy to address biodiversity loss recognises the crucial role that farmers play and includes their perspectives, knowledge and needs.

We also need an approach that does not kowtow to wealthy vested interests with powerful influence. We must be sure to have informed discussions that are grounded in facts and science and, importantly, benefit from the experience and knowledge of stakeholders. We must not be led by misinformation or the pursuit of profit. Only then can we achieve a nature restoration regulation that effectively addresses the crisis that confronts us. Standing still or the status quo is an option. We need a pathway forward and must forge it as a matter of urgency.

Separate from the nature restoration regulation but related to its intent are climate obligations here. The Government has a climate action plan to which it must give life. It must provide certainty and the tools, knowledge and support to people. Speculation or policymaking on the hoof or in the pages of the Sunday papers will not do. It only serves to add to confusion. The Minister pointed to the issue of funding. The Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications speculated at the weekend about a nature restoration fund.

Will there be such a fund? If so, how much will be allocated to it? What will it be used for? What is expected of landowners? Important questions need to be asked and answered. A collaborative approach and urgent decisive action are needed now. We can, and must, find a way forward.

Deputy Alan Kelly

I am glad we are discussing this today. It is apt given the conversations that are all over the airwaves. When I was driving up to Dublin today, I heard it on multiple channels. The Minister was being referred to on multiple channels. I want to speak a little about the politics of this because I am sick and tired of it. I have my own differences with the Green Party but I have a lot in common with it. All I hear is a misconception that this is all the Green Party. You are all in government together, lads. This is not a proposal coming from the Green Party. It is a proposal that is coming from Europe. It is less ambitious than some of the targets set out in our own plans.

Either way, the point is that backbenchers can go on radio stations or speak to journalists and they can blame every Minister, Deputy and Senator from the Green Party but ultimately Government Members all walk through the same lobbies together and they vote as a Government. If Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael do not want this to happen or do not want laws such as this to be passed, they know what to do. They should bring down the Government, vote against it or do whatever is necessary. We have one arm of the Government going in one direction with a law that is necessary, although I have my views on it and would like changes, and another arm of the Government sitting on the backbenches and attacking people on the airwaves and in the media saying it is the Green Party agenda.

I compliment the Green Party on achieving its agenda, which is welcome. It is the party's agenda and it is to be welcomed. There is the idea that there can be a different narrative going in another direction from backbench Deputies who say this is all from the Green Party and that they are against all of it but they are part of the Government. They will still toe the line. We cannot have it in one way and not in the other. Either the Government is all in this together or it folds. This is what is going on. It is very nasty politics and I do not appreciate it.

To go back to the subject matter, we have a crisis, which we declared in 2019. This needs to be done in a very delicate way. I can update the House that in the past half an hour the EPP has pulled out of negotiations in Europe on this. Its lead negotiator and chairperson just issued a statement stating they are no longer in negotiations. The timelines that I have in front of me include a committee meeting on 15 June and the parliamentary plenary session in July or September. We do not know whether they will go ahead. We need to bear this in mind.

I grew up on a farm. I recall working very hard as a young kid trying to restore land. I live beside the River Shannon and I know all about the restoration of land. I was on a dairy farm for many years. We worked very hard and we were very proud of the land we restored. However, we are now in a situation where collectively we need to bring everyone together. We need to have ambitious targets. I acknowledge some of the actions that have been taken. Actions on commonage, the Burren and a range of other measures that I do not have time to list are very good. We have to change our narrative regarding how we will bring farmers and farming and rural communities with us. Ireland is a very small island. Having spent half of my life before I entered politics in an urban setting because of work versus where I grew up in a rural setting, I despise the urban-rural divide. We are too small a country to have an urban-rural divide. Anyway, we are turning into one big conurbation in many ways. We really need to bring people with us.

I welcome the Minister's statement that rewetting will not being mandatory. I do not believe we can get to the 2050 targets using just public lands. I wish we could but I do not believe we can do so. There will be a real issue with neighbouring farmland, which will have to be dealt with through compensation. I accept 100% the Minister's bona fides on current farm payments not being affected. Legally, they could not be affected but I am not too sure going forward. It is an open question. I believe that this should be voluntary for farmers. This is the way it should be.

I was very much taken with what Darragh McCullough wrote in the Irish Independent. All of us have read the article. It is a very balanced article. A demonstration farm to show what will happen is a very good idea. We could have a demonstration area that visualises this and shows how it will work. It would be an excellent idea to try to demonstrate to people where we are going with this.

I wanted to discuss forestry, which has been an absolute disaster, but I do not have time. I want to ask about the supposed leaked briefing paper that was referenced during the week. It has built up bile in the media, which has entered the national restoration debate. I understand why briefing papers are done. I was a Minister and I understand it. However, I notice that on the airwaves many of the Minister's party colleagues, and his colleagues in Fine Gael, do not seem to remind people this is under the remit of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine where the Minister is the boss.

Internationally this does not look good for us. This has gone throughout the media. Many of the national newspapers in major European countries and worldwide state that Ireland will start culling cows. That is barbaric. We should never end up doing this. I understand why this was done. Some of the plans and the various initiatives are quite good, such as those on retirement, which we need to consider. We also need to consider new entrants as the age profile is an issue in the sector. Let us have a full debate on this. Let us pull out whatever paper is emanating from the Department and discuss it here instead of having all this hot air blowing politically and in the media. In many cases, it is totally inaccurate and an absolute waste.

Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage (Deputy Malcolm Noonan)

While we are on this subject and I have the floor, I pay tribute to Michael Viney who passed away this week. Michael made his home with Ethna in Thallabawn, County Mayo. He wrote for 60 years of his experiences of living in rural Ireland and of nature. It is fitting that we pay tribute to him this afternoon.

I thank our team leading the discussions on behalf of the Government and the National Parks and Wildlife Service. They are doing an exceptional job. I spoke to my Swedish counterpart and the environment minister yesterday. They are very impressed with the constructive engagement of the Irish Government. I also thank my colleague the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, for his leadership on this. There is no doubt it is challenging. He has probably had a bit more of a distance to travel on this than I did and I pay tribute to him for the work he is doing and his engagement. The Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, was mentioned. Along with him and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, we are working together throughout government on this. We know the context. We know of the loss of nature and the deteriorating water quality. We saw the floods in the Emilia-Romagna region of northern Italy last week. We have seen extreme weather events in Spain and we are not even in full summer yet. We know why we have to do this.

While we are focused on agriculture this afternoon, it is important to note the regulation goes way beyond agricultural land. Article 4 relates to terrestrial coasts and freshwater systems under the birds and habitats directives. Article 5 covers marine ecosystems. Article 6 covers urban ecosystems, which will be challenging. Article 7 deals with the restoration of our rivers and getting back our free-flowing rivers, which is very important. Article 8 covers the pollinator populations. Good work is under way here on the all-Ireland pollinator plan but there is so much more to be done. Article 9 covers agriculture and article 10 covers the restoration of forest ecosystems. This is significant and it is the greatest opportunity we have to restore nature in Ireland and Europe. It is ambitious and this is why it is important we are at the table. It is terrible to hear the EPP has pulled out at this stage. It is really disgraceful.

I believe there is an opportunity here to shape this and to work in an Irish context and everybody should be at the table to do that.

It is also worth repeating that we cannot have good agricultural production without healthy nature and clean water, and we cannot restore nature without our farmers, without grazing animals or without productive use of our land. We saw the CSO data yesterday. There is an alarming trend that is going to affect succession on Irish farms so we need farmers on our lands, which is critical.

Like the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, I feel like a broken record on this. What we are saying is that out to 2030 and even out to 2040, we can meet the majority of our ambition in terms of agricultural commitment on State lands, Coillte lands and Bord na Móna lands, and we have been very clear on that. Thereafter, we are talking about possibly 14,000 ha of land that we would require to use and this would be under voluntary schemes. Only last week, Wild Atlantic Nature, a blanket bog restoration project in the north west, paid out €2.4 million to landowners. These are invaluable resources, with money coming into rural communities and embedding itself in rural communities. Farmers love to be involved in these schemes and they are really good schemes.

We also have mentioned consistently that we need to develop a strategic fund for nature and that is something the Government is working on. It needs to draw in both public finances and private finances, and to look towards the EU as well for support. I stressed that to my Swedish ministerial colleague yesterday as well.

I agree that the issue of rewetting has been divisive. Rewetting is not the pickling of the land, it is not flooding land, and agricultural land can still be productive under rewetting. I agree with the contention of Pat O'Toole in the article in the Irish Farmers’ Journal on 20 May that we need to look at demonstration projects and demonstration farms. There are already really good examples across the country and I think we need to look towards those to show the way forward.

I travel a lot to visit farms. My little grey car could be spotted around bogs and beaches, farmyards, piers and harbours, community centres and GAA halls, rivers, lakes and national parks over the past three years. Most recently, I was on the farm of Sinead Moran and Mick McGrath in Tober, County Mayo. They farm a small dairy holding, producing organic milk and butter. It is an amazing farm. It is great to be there at this time of the year when the hedgerows are vibrant, with the ponds, orchards and hedgerows, and all of it thriving. There is an opportunity here that we need to grasp. This is critical. I have also been speaking to people like Suzanna Crampton. I was up on a farm at Spa Hill in north Kilkenny, where there are beautiful karst farms. I visited the dunes of north-west Kerry, farmers supporting corncrakes in Donegal, and farmers farming to support curlews in County Roscommon. I was also speaking to farmers like Bill O'Keeffe and Jim Mulhall in my own county of Kilkenny, and have seen the work that Bryan Daniels is doing up the road from my father's old place in Kilmoganny. Farmers are best placed to lead on this. As we have stated already, anything we do has to be done through voluntary schemes and it has to be done with the support and the expertise of farmers. That is one thing I think we can do with this regulation.

I appeal for leadership at a political level. I know there is an election cycle coming and perhaps some MEPs need to be seen to be vocal on certain issues. I want to state that there are also votes in nature and in restoring nature. For us, it is a political issue. As I saw through the children and young people's assembly, young people want us to act for nature, they want us to be responsible, they want us to show leadership and, above all, they want us to be honest about the challenges we face. In that regard, I am encouraged by the debate here this afternoon.

The Irish Government will continue to engage in a positive frame of mind in regard to that nature restoration regulation. As I said last week in the debate on biodiversity, I hope that if things do not go as we hope in Europe, Ireland should embark on its own nature restoration plan. A lot of the work is ongoing already, and I have seen that good work across the country.

I want to say to Deputy Kerrane that the issue around the mess on communications certainly was not on our part. We have been very clear about this from the outset. I disagree that it is the wrong approach. As to the notion that one could suggest we have been advocating the removal of large swathes of agricultural land from use, that is simply not the case. It is not the case.

On the issue of responsibility, the Deputy could be on this side of the House when our nature restoration plan is signed off in 2025. I ask that her party shows responsibility on this too. It is all very well speaking positively about the nature restoration regulation in this Chamber but her party's MEPs need to act with that same level of responsibility. Again, collectively, we need to show leadership and responsibility and to be honest about this.

Deputy Steven Matthews

Deputy Kelly was right to point out this is not just a green issue or a Green Party issue. This affects all of us, and every single one of us in this House. Nature has been going into reverse and into decline for 50, 60 or 70 years and we have all had a contribution towards that. This is an opportunity to reverse and turn it around. While it is not just a green thing, the Greens will always lead on this; we always have done and we always will do. I have been knocking on doors for over 20 years to highlight the degraded environment and the impact that is going to have, not just on us now but also on farmers and future generations.

This provides us with the best opportunity. Most of the good stuff we have ever done for our environment, water quality or anything to do with climate has come from Europe, and we should listen to it. We should take the opportunity to embrace this nature restoration regulation and to protect the environment. It is not just about farming and is about urban environments as well. I recently introduced a Private Member's Bill that will put some power into the hands of local councillors to be able to identify pockets of nature and spots within urban centres that are locally important for ecology. It is important that we do that in the urban centres as well.

This is about our marine environment too. When we came into government, about 2.5% of our marine area was protected and it is now up to about 8% and heading for 10%. The marine protected areas legislation is coming in and it will enable us to achieve that objective and commitment that we have of 30% of our marine area being marine protected areas. That is what nature restoration law is about as well.

It is also about our water quality. Look at the constant deterioration we have seen of our rivers and lakes. We cannot ignore it and we cannot ignore the reasons it is happening. It is because the wastewater treatment plants that we are not investing enough money in are discharging into water courses. There is agricultural run-off and it is part of the problem, no matter how many people want to deny it. It is part of the problem.

There is the legacy of forestry from the past: planting forests in the wrong places, clear-felling, acidification of water courses and contamination of water courses. These are all the opportunities that we have to take. The nature restoration regulation pulls that all together. The Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, covered it very well and he is leading nature restoration in Ireland with the investment we have seen in the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the progress on the marine protected areas legislation.

I ask all Members in this House to be honest and not to engage in scaremongering. I listened to Fintan Kelly outside Leinster House, talking about the scaremongering that is going on. Of course, people are going to be scared because they trust what is said in this House, and it has to be honest. People look up to and elect the Deputies in this House to represent them. If they hear that scaremongering and fear out there, of course, they are going to react to it. I would ask everybody in this House to be honest and to ask what nature restoration regulations are going to provide for Ireland for now and for future generations. Most of the measures in it are voluntary. Nobody is going to be forced or frogmarched up to rewet land. It is only a very small part of it. What is being proposed here is going to be beneficial for all of us for now and into the future.

Last week, we had people in here talking. If tea and sympathy were going to save biodiversity, it would have been saved last week. We need to see that with actions. When I see the likes of Fine Gael and Sinn Féin vote against this in Europe without taking the opportunity to make amendments, it makes me ask: do they really have any commitment?

Deputy Claire Kerrane

We did make amendments.

Deputy Steven Matthews

I did not interrupt you. I asked: do you have a commitment to the environment; do you have a commitment to climate? Because I see no evidence of that.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Seán Canney)

We move to Sinn Féin. I call Deputy Conway-Walsh.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

The first thing I would say is to get your own house in order because the biggest scaremongers in all of this were your own partners in government, and your MEP, Billy Kelleher.

Deputy Matthews would have heard him last week.

Deputy Steven Matthews

He is not my MEP. I cannot vote for him.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

The Deputy should not interrupt me. They are the Green Party's partners in government. What is going on between them is not my business but they must get it sorted. I am not going to take lectures from the Green Party. I am from rural Ireland and from a farming community and have been dealing with farming organisations and farmers across the board. Since the nitrates directive in 1997, I have heard all of the promises that were made to farmers and all of the ambiguities involved. First it was a case of telling them to have as many sheep as possible on the hills. Then they were told to take them all back down, to put them back up, and to take them back down again. Farmers were told to invest in dairy over the years and they have invested hugely in the sector. Now they are being told that the dairy herd will have to be cut, with 200,000 cows to be culled annually.

We want to get this right and we want to work with the Government to get it right but let us have some truth here about how farmers and rural communities have been treated. In its current form, the nature restoration law has too much ambiguity around the impact it would have on family farms. If, as the previous speakers said, farmers do not understand or are getting the wrong message, then it is up to the Government to talk to them. The farming organisations must be front and centre in terms of what the Government is doing. They must be involved in the conversation. In my own area, I am very familiar with the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association, INHFA, which understands the issues. Its president, Mr. Vincent Roddy, and others in that organisation understand what needs to be done and what can be done. Farmers are the custodians of the land and will continue to be that but the Government must have buy-in from farming communities. I am afraid it has lost some of that over the years.

I agree with the Minister about the wonderful biodiversity projects, some of which he would have seen in my own county. Farmers want to do more of that but they also want certainty. They want the Minister to go out to Europe and represent them there. However, the trust is not there so there is no point in saying that it will be okay, it will be all right, "trust us". Farmers want assurances to be written into the laws that are made in order that they can be sure their lands are protected, their families will get planning permission and they will be able to farm their land in the way they do. The Government has a responsibility to make sure that the ambiguity is taken out of it and that it works in true partnership with farmers and rural communities. There are wonderful opportunities in terms of biodiversity in the context of the PEACEPLUS programme and we want to see more of that. We want to see more of the good practice but we want a bit of respect as well in terms of how this is done.

As my colleague, Deputy Kerrane, has said, Sinn Féin will work with the Government on this but the knock-on effects of designating land for rewetting must be looked at. If we contain the rewetting to State-owned lands, that is fine but the lands adjacent to the rewetted areas will be seriously affected by rising water tables on the adjoining lands. If the Government disagrees with me and states that rising water tables will not happen, I need to see that clearly. This will affect the viability of the farmland in the surrounding areas. Not only that but with every new set of designations comes a further burden of compliance on those landholders in close proximity to the rewetted lands. In my own parish, for example, large tracts of land are designated as special areas of conservation, SACs, and special protection areas, SPAs, with specific reference to the corncrake habitat. Their presence here greatly restricts the prospect of getting planning permission. Even those people who are applying on lands that are outside the designated areas are being told by Mayo County Council that if their site is within 1,500 m of the designation, then an environmental report is required. This adds up to €1,000 to the costs for applicants, which has a knock-on effect on farmers. Farmers are not being compensated in the way they need to be compensated. When applying for targeted agriculture modernisation scheme, TAMS, grants for farm sheds, sheep fencing and so on, the designation adds a further layer of red tape for farmers, by way of the environmental impact statement that is required. There must be a just approach to this. We cannot have situations where some can afford to apply but others cannot. It adds a huge additional cost and causes delays to applications, which was not outlined to landowners when the designations were proposed. We want upfront honesty, straightness and guarantees of protection for small family farms and rural Ireland. We will certainly work with the Minister to achieve that.

Deputy Holly Cairns

A lot of the debate on this entire issue has been an exercise in grandstanding. Some politicians have seized on the nature restoration law and blatantly stoked up fears for their own benefit - not just Opposition parties and Independents but also Government backbenchers. Of course, they will have to try to be in favour of it in principle to tick the environmental credentials box, while being highly critical of it to satisfy populist demands.

Can we get clarity on the Government’s position on the nature restoration law? The Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, has said it is happening; the Taoiseach has said it is going too far; a Fine Gael MEP voted against it; and Fianna Fáil MEPs are not supporting it. What is the Government's actual position on it? When the Minister is meeting his European counterparts, what exactly is he saying? It should also be noted that a Sinn Féin MEP voted against the law at the European Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.

It is important to look at some of the facts. The need for far-reaching climate action simply could not be more urgent. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s recent assessment report shows a temperature rise of 1.1°C. This has resulted in more frequent and hazardous weather events and increasing destruction to people and the planet. To date, we have not even done a fraction of what needs to be done. Ireland’s emissions are going up, not down. We simply cannot afford to wait any longer. The current trajectory is going to result in the unthinkable. Not only are we in the middle of a climate crisis, the scale of biodiversity damage is frightening. Figures from the National Parks and Wildlife Service show that 91% of protected habitats are in poor or inadequate condition, and more than 50% are declining. Half of our rivers, lakes and coastal waters are ecologically substandard according to the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, including 18.5% of monitored rivers being "severely" polluted. You would swear our existence did not depend on this but it does. The status quo cannot continue. We need radical change now to the way we live, travel and farm.

The first recommendation of the Citizens’ Assembly on Biodiversity Loss is unequivocal, "The State must take prompt, decisive and urgent action to address biodiversity loss and restoration and must provide leadership in protecting Ireland’s biodiversity for future generations." Is there leadership on this? Is the Government going to act on this recommendation? The nature restoration law is a tool to help achieve this. It is a direct response to the climate and biodiversity crisis. It is a funded framework aimed at restoring degraded ecosystems, with a prioritisation of areas with the most potential to capture and store carbon, especially wetlands and peatlands. The proposal also acknowledges that certain groups, such as farmers, will be impacted more than others. Consequently, national and EU funding was proposed to implement the law.

The rewetting of peatlands has emerged as a point of tension and that is understandable. Farmers are looking at the potential impact on their land and livelihoods. However, knee-jerk reactions and meetings to stoke up opposition to this will not do anybody any good. The Minister has already pointed out that these commitments can be met on State-owned land, and the Government’s own climate action plan commits to peatlands restoration anyway. The best and most responsible thing we can do is to look at the proposals and see how we can leverage them to the maximum benefit of family farms in Ireland. That would be a much better use of all of our time and energy.

In a climate crisis, comments from elected representatives about how any kind of climate action is bad for Irish agriculture are irresponsible. You would swear agricultural communities have nothing at stake in relation to climate change but the opposite is true. However, the narrative from both sides of this House results in the communities who will be most affected by climate change being the most reluctant to take any climate action. You could not make it up. Most people agree on the need for substantial action to address the climate and biodiversity crisis and most farmers that I speak to agree. One of the things that really frustrates me about this ridiculous debate that pits farmers against one another and environmentalists is the presumption that somehow farmers either do not care about the disastrous impacts of climate change or that we do not understand them. Either way, it is insulting to farming communities and it is not true.

I have to ask the Deputies, the MEPs and whoever else is opposing this, what exactly is the plan for the future of the agriculture sector, for example, if we do not take climate action. Where do they see the future of the industry if we keep letting emissions rise and allow soil degradation to continue alongside more biodiversity loss? Where will the industry be then?

The crucial thing in all this will be principles of a fair transition. Rural and farming communities need to be supported to make changes, and that will require financial support. In addition, with every policy there is considerably more scope for better engagement and consultation. It is clear from a recent Committee on Environment and Climate Action meeting that there is considerable mistrust of Government policies and promises among farmers. We also need everyone to be responsible and to act in good faith and, crucially, we need everybody to be honest. To all the farmers out there who might not like what I am saying, I want you to know that I will at least be honest. The Social Democrats are fully committed to climate action, to a fair transition and to real honesty around that.

I know, however, that many of the voices claiming to represent rural Ireland today reflect only one position. I am regularly contacted by farmers and others who often - and it is a shame this has to be so - quietly support climate action and recognise the need for change. They recognise that the absence of such action is walking farmers to a cliff edge. We will have to take such action. Short-termism will not help farmers. In the rush to oppose this legislation, its potential both to benefit rural communities and to achieve our climate targets has been overlooked.

The Government could and should have been considerably more proactive on this. A nature restoration fund could immediately provide investment in rural areas for the revitalisation of ecosystems. Farmers and landowners should be rewarded as custodians of natural heritage and our vital biodiversity. As farmers, we are used to being proud of our agriculture. We should continue to do that by being the country that leads the way in truly sustainable agriculture.

I had so much more I wanted to say about this, and there are other aspects to the nature restoration law that have not been discussed today. I really hope we can come back to them at a later stage in this House.

Deputy Alan Farrell

I very much welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter, which is extremely important. A healthy biosphere is crucial to the future sustainability of our global and domestic ecosystems. The interconnectedness of our global environment means that whatever happens in one part of the world will have a direct impact not only on the nation but also on people in completely separate countries. The risk of a degraded biosphere and a depletion of biodiversity will have significant consequences for our world. We rely on biodiversity to prevent diseases and viruses from spreading and for the development of new and existing medicines. We rely on biospheres to provide clean air for us all to breathe, clean water for us to drink and much more.

A recent study by Queen's University Belfast described the rate of erosion within our global biospheres as "significantly more alarming" than we had previously thought. It also showed that nearly 50% of species globally are in population decline. We must prevent that situation from deteriorating and strive to boost global species populations. It is in that context that we must do everything we can to increase biodiversity at home while working with our European partners to improve the health of our continental biosphere and that of the wider globe.

We often discuss climate-related issues in this House, and we see many climate-related narratives in the media. Despite that, however, I believe that sometimes we can forget the scale of the challenge before us. Our species has never faced such a challenge, and it will be hard for our nation and other nations around the world to deliver the kind of change needed in order to limit the scale of the impact.

Boosting biodiversity is a key tool in all our efforts to roll back the damage being done to our ecosystems, and that will play a significant role in protecting our future. It is for those reasons that I support the principles of the European Commission's proposal for the introduction of a nature restoration law. Under that proposal, the Commission has proposed that protective measures should be introduced to cover a minimum of 20% of all the EU's land and sea areas by 2030, in time extending to all ecosystems that are in need of restoration by 2050. The proposed regulation - I stress the word "proposed" - would require each member state to develop a national restoration plan within two years of the measures coming into force. Among the proposals for agriculture is an increase in grassland butterfly and farmland bird populations, the stock of organic carbon in cropland mineral soils and the share of agricultural land with high-diversity landscape features, restoring drained peatlands currently under agricultural use.

While I support the principles of the Commission's plans, I believe there should be scope for individual member states to tailor the approach that works for their own domestic situations. I understand that the Government is working with the Commission to that effect, and that is the right approach. Scaremongering on a draft proposal which has yet to achieve consensus among member states is disingenuous at best. It is incumbent on Members of this House to tell the truth.

It is important that any resulting targets or regulations are clearly defined, achievable and, importantly, not punitive to farmers and other landowners, specifically with regard to land use. It is appropriate that incentives should be considered for adaption of land use, which can boost engagement and participation and ensure sustainable incomes for farm families.

While the challenge is huge, I believe there is still time for us to implement positive change. Just recently a project involving Glenasmole in the Dublin Mountains was unveiled. It is an important biodiversity project that will cover 2,000 ha of land and involve native woodland planting while reducing soil erosion, improving water quality and much more. Those are the kinds of initiatives we have to see in years to come. Our ecosystem can be a vital ally in our climate action efforts, and we must be ambitious in our goals to build the strength of our biosphere and our biodiversity. We can all play a very significant part in achieving those collective goals.

Deputy Marc Ó Cathasaigh

Before I turn to the topic at hand, I could not speak on matters relating to the natural world today without marking the sad loss of Michael Viney, who was one of the finest nature writers we have had the fortune to have in this country. The "Another Life" column was founded the same year I was born, 1977. That column on a Saturday has been part of the rhythm of my weekend my entire adult life. In a sense, he was our David Attenborough, but instead of seeking the wild world in far-flung places, he burrowed down into his beloved Thallabawn and let the natural world come to him. I am reminded of Blake: he saw the world in a grain of sand and a heaven in a wild flower. Over close to half a century, his column evolved from a diary of another life, a life lived another way, into a sad elegy for how much we have lost in our natural world and, indeed, how much we stand to lose. I wonder what his Saturday column would have said this Saturday with an eye to the nature restoration law and how calm and informed his voice would have been, as it always was, in going through the detail measure by measure, not in a way that would scaremonger or seek to mislead but in a way that would really speak to us about the actual implications of what is a far-reaching and extremely necessary law from the European Union.

There is no comeback from extinction, and we have to be honest about the scale of the impact we as humans are having on the natural world that sustains us. The nature restoration law represents a last best hope to try to remediate some of that damage, to try to restore our landscapes that have sustained us for so long and to put a halt to the steep decline we have seen in biodiversity right across the European Union and right across the entire world. There is also a question of intergenerational fairness here. Extinction is for ever. No future generation can undo that damage. As our countryside becomes progressively quieter, emptier and lonelier, I am acutely conscious that that is a world I am handing over to my children and my grandchildren, and that is not a legacy I think any one of us here wants to leave.

The title of our debate today is "the current state of play regarding the nature restoration law". Not two hours ago I saw news breaking that the European People's Party, EPP, had left the negotiations.

I hold Deputy Alan Farrell in the highest regard. He is one of the most capable parliamentary colleagues in the Houses. Given that I have heard him voice his support for the proposed legislation, I implore him to make his views known, including to his European colleagues. It is imperative that this law pass.

One of the things that concerns me is the time we have spent discussing Article 9.4. I believe the Minister dealt very well in his opening statement with the facts that the scale of the ambition we need regarding rewetting targets already matches up with our climate action plan and that State-owned land can do almost all the heavy lifting, certainly up to 2030 or 2040. I am not sure why so much emphasis has been laid on Article 9.4. Is it that people do not understand that State-owned lands can do the heavy lifting that is necessary? Alternatively, I wonder whether there is deliberate misdirection because, as I read the legislation and the nature restoration law, I look to Article 4 in respect of real ambition and the real scale of change needed if we are to meet the challenge put to us by the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss, which requires us to take radical and urgent action. Article 4 refers more to what we do with our protected habitats. Under Article 17 of the habitats directive, we must report to the European Commission on the status of our protected habitats and species. According to the Status of EU Protected Habitats and Species in Ireland report, which was produced by the National Parks and Wildlife Service in 2019, 85% of our habitats are in an unfavourable condition, either inadequate or bad, with 46% of habitats demonstrating ongoing declining trends. The real challenge lies in living up to existing obligations under the likes of the birds and habitats directives and the sustainable development goals, which commit us to the ambitious restoration of our natural world, be it on the land or in our rivers. In this regard, I find Article 7 more ambitious and challenging than Article 9.4. We have pre-existing commitments we are not living up to. In fact, these are the most difficult. We have spent too long hiding from them and reporting time and again, on the basis of a six-year cycle, on how the natural world is in decline rather than taking up the challenge put to us by the Citizens' Assembly to act urgently, as needed. Future generations will look back at this debate on the nature restoration law and will see it as a pivotal turning point in one direction or another. We should be conscious of that obligation and responsibility within the House.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Michael Ring)

I would like to be associated with the Deputy's remarks on Michael Viney, who lived in Mayo at Thallabawn, a most beautiful part of the world. I offer my sympathy to his family. He certainly was somebody who made an impression and was well thought of in the community.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú

What will be said today will be somewhat similar to what was said here last week about biodiversity. It goes without saying that all the indicators on biodiversity and climate change have been going in the absolute wrong direction for a considerable amount of time. I get that kind words and saying the right thing in here will not move the indicators in the right way. One of the most frightening statistics I have heard is that 1 million species are facing extinction. Whatever this may tell or reek of, it is certainly not sustainability. We are talking about the continuity of life as we know it. Regardless of whether we are talking about a single ecosystem and all the associated interconnections or about the many ecosystems that make up our world, we are in severe danger. We know action is required. The big question concerns what this action should be and how it should be taken.

We are aware of the difficulties that have existed with the nature restoration law. We are aware of the public discourse on it and have noted the difficulties that exist, even today. Let us be absolutely clear: nobody has ever put legislation together or a plan in place that was absolutely perfect straightaway. Therefore, we need to consider the best parts of the measure and what can be salvaged in time. Does it play a part? Definitely.

With regard to just transition, other than hearing the term "just transition" I am not very sure I have seen it in many places. We need to see pathways, not cliff edges. These are terms that are used quite often in here but we really have to offer people pathways, not just talk about the terms. I have often used the term "just transition", as have many others, but I do not believe there has been sufficient engagement with farmers or rural communities. Not enough work has been done with them. Claims will be made across the board that there has been a genuine failure of communications regarding what constitutes the nature restoration law and what it will look like when we are dealing with it. Again, the piece missing across the board is genuine engagement. Such engagement would allow us to make sure, in examining this legislation, that we can see what is needed and what constitutes a fit-for-purpose system. There is an opportunity to deal with this by amendment nearly before it reaches the environmental committee in Europe and as it makes its journey through it and beyond.

Let us talk about who will be affected by the changes that need to be made. We hear about them at IFA meetings, in the public discourse and sometimes in the discourse in this place. The fact is that a great many farmers are open to change and to the fact that we are in a changing world where action is definitely needed. However, I am not sure we are having the appropriate engagement and communication to ensure we can actually put an appropriate plan in place. That is the issue I see.

It is often said that people went into dairy farming, in particular, on the basis of its being where the incentives were. I would say there was a hell of a lot more engagement than one might think because I am well aware of farmers who were contacted by agricultural advisers who had been contacted by people connected to State agencies and the Department asking whether they knew of any farmers, including young farmers, who would be interested in being dairy farmers. That is what happened. There were incentives and it made logical sense from a business point of view to do what was done. Therefore, that is where farmers went. Therefore, I do not believe it is beyond us to address this. There is a considerable number of farmers whom it will suit to engage in particular strategies or projects, so it is a matter of ensuring we have fit-for-purpose grant schemes and systems, without all the problems.

I remember talking here last year about Tidy Towns and biodiversity projects. Those concerned will talk about the issues they have in getting grant funding and the mad bureaucracy that exists. These are the sorts of issues we need to deal with. We know action needs to be taken in relation to the climate action plan but we need a genuine conversation on whether we are going to have a nature restoration fund, what it will look like and whom the payments will be made to. We need to put the framework in place.

Deputy Bríd Smith

I am sharing my time with Deputy Boyd Barrett.

People Before Profit also wishes to note the passing of Michael Viney. He is a great loss to the nation. Nature was his passion and he shared it with us both widely and wildly. He is already missed.

Having heard the statements on the biodiversity crisis and the proceedings of the various committee meetings on its scale and scope, I am not aware of any Deputy who has denied the scientific reports and research that state we are effectively experiencing the sixth mass extinction event. Let me repeat the main examples of what is actually happening in Ireland.

A third of all species examined in Ireland, including plants, butterflies, freshwater fish, dragonflies and sharks, are either threatened with extinction or near threatened. The 2019 report of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, on the state of Ireland's EU protected habitats and species showed that 85% of those habitats, including peatlands, were of bad or inadequate status. Almost 50 marine species of fish, shellfish, invertebrates and seaweed in Irish waters are under threat of extinction. The most recent BirdWatch Ireland assessment in 2021 showed that 63% of Ireland's 211 regularly occurring wild bird species were categorised as red or amber due to moderate or severe decline, with 37% on the amber list and 26% on the red list. The main groups of birds affected are those on wetlands, peatlands and farmlands and in marine environments.

Given these facts, I am puzzled that the nature restoration law is controversial and has aroused such anger. There are some Deputies who, in the normal run of events, are preoccupied with other issues, for example, complaining about refugees occupying hotel beds, accusing women accessing abortion of all sorts of things, or Deputies like me who drive diesel vans. Having taken time out of their busy schedules, they are here to denounce the proposals as the greatest threat to rural Ireland since Cromwell.

I, too, have spoken to farmers. They are concerned. Their fears, which are genuine, are based on what they have seen happening over the past decade as the agricultural policies of this State were led and determined by large interests in the food processing, beef and dairy sectors. While these interests have become larger and richer and exports of dairy and so forth have rocketed upwards, most small farmers have seen no benefit and feel more precarious and fearful about the future. Their fears are backed by research from the farming organisations on the number and incomes of that majority.

Farmers' fears are real and we need to compensate them for the biodiversity measures they take. However, I am puzzled by how so much of that fear is directed at what is a modest proposal. It should instead be directed at what is undermining farmers' livelihoods and futures. That is not the nature restoration law but the craven policies of this and past Governments that have benefited a relative few in the farming industry over the vast majority of ordinary farmers. The unsustainable model of industrial food production has to be challenged.

The report admits that all previous attempts under various habitats directives and regulations on protected areas have failed to halt the decline in biodiversity. Why is there hysteria? I am not concerned that the law is too radical or will mean too much change in order to save wildlife. My fear is the opposite, namely, that this law will join the many other directives and regulations that have failed to halt the decline in biodiversity. Until we look at the root causes of that decline – these are the same drivers pressurising ordinary farmers, namely, the industrial intensive model that prioritises the profits of large commercial interests over ordinary farmers – we will not stop it.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

The nature restoration law is a modest thing and, for the most part, we have already agreed and adopted all of its targets and objectives. The controversial issue of rewetting is going to be accounted for mainly on State lands. It is reasonable that farmers who believe that rewetting might affect their adjoining lands should get assurances of support from the Government, but it is certainly no reason to oppose this law. Beware politicians who speak out of both sides of their mouths. I do not understand what the Government is up to in this context. The Government says it is serious about biodiversity, yet Fine Gael, as part of the European People's Party, has just pulled out of the discussions and Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael backbenchers are essentially rallying against this very modest measure. Games are being played for political purposes.

Beware also politicians who keep talking about the urban-rural divide. The real division in this country is between the poor, be they small and struggling farmers in rural areas or poor people in urban areas, and the rich in urban and rural areas. If anyone wants to understand what is threatening and destroying biodiversity, it is the greed of big agribusiness and rich corporations more generally that want to invest in industrial forms of forestry that destroy biodiversity, are bad for water and soil quality and do nothing to restore nature. In fact, they destroy nature. The common thread is that it is all about money, and money for the few, not for the ordinary farmer. We need a just transition for small farmers and funding to ensure that they are paid and rewarded for enhancing biodiversity and restoring nature. Their lack of trust in the Government is understandable, but it should not be exploited in a cynical way by people who are just playing political games with a serious issue, that being, the destruction of biodiversity, which threatens all of humanity.

An Ceann Comhairle

Next is Deputy Bruton, who I believe will be sharing time with Deputy Cathal Crowe once he arrives.

Deputy Richard Bruton

I welcome this debate and the Minister's assurances. He made important points, the first of which was that this situation was evolving and he had already gained significant flexibilities. The second was that Ireland was not tied into plans or targets developed at a single point in time. That was one of the fears held by people who read the detail of some of these targets. The third point, and one the Minister emphasised, was that the obligation to deliver was on member states, not on individuals. Article 16 of the agreement could be read as giving the right to litigate against individuals in respect of some of the targets. As such, the Minister's assurances were important.

The existing strategy has failed. There was to be 15% restoration by 2020 but we have not delivered that. The idea of delivering binding targets and having a new framework for delivery is central. We will all be worse off if we fall short. Some practices that we have all bought into over many years – from fossil fuels to the way we manage our businesses and farms – will inflict catastrophic damage if we do not move early to correct them.

People saying that farmers only account for 2% of the population and we cannot be held to ransom by them is a recipe for preventing progress. Equally, I deplore the portrayal of adapting to meet these changes as an attack on rural life as we know it. This is equally damaging. Both positions, which I have heard articulated by Deputies, are a recipe for paralysis and that helps no one. It is important that we take this opportunity to develop a framework that avoids the postponement of action, allows us to take early action and ensures fairness for those who would be impacted.

It is important to emphasise that we are not dealing with a zero-sum game. As the Commission has pointed out time and again, this is a positive-sum game and, if we move, we will all be better off. The Commission has indicated that the benefit will be eight times the investment we are being asked to make. In gaming theory, this is an opportunity to have co-operative strategies from which we will all benefit and to share that benefit in a way that is fair to those who must make the greatest changes.

In many ways, fear has grown because what is being proposed is not trivial, as some have suggested. It is as radical as the climate action plan, in that we will have to change significantly the approaches to land use to which we have grown accustomed. We recall how the climate action plan evolved. I was involved in it. Hundreds of measures were evaluated, marginal cost curves were developed, investment needs were profiled, and tax and incentive instruments were developed. We are a long way from that in this case, but we are also facing what is radically transformative change. As politicians, we have to bring people with us if we are to deliver this change.

It is tempting for people to say, as I hear Members in the House say, that we should look at the science, which gives us a target and then let us have legal measures to go after these greedy people and make sure they deliver. That is a blind alley. Anyone who looks to the future of this country must see that is the case. It would create conflict that would not deliver the objectives. My belief is that what we have to do is develop an approach that helps the change to happen. A lot of this change has happened inadvertently. No one knew what would happen when people made commitments to draining land. I remember writing about draining river basins as being a really positive thing that conferred lots of benefits. No one knew at the time the damage that was being done by it or by fossil fuels. It is simplistic to say that the greedy companies or big business should reverse this. We all have to change the way we live, but that is not going to be easy and we have to evolve ways of working together to do that.

We must ensure that carbon farming comes forward rapidly and the incentives for carbon farming come very quickly. What I think we need here are what I saw referred to as complex adaptive coalitions. We need to build coalitions that can help us to deliver this. That is not going to be easy. I welcome the Minister's commitment, but I think we need to work through these targets and ensure they are compatible and we can work to them.

Deputy Cathal Crowe

I thank the Minister and the Minister of State for taking today's debate. I am little bit puffed because I got the train just a short while ago and as I was pedalling up the quays the Whip's office said my slot was coming up shortly. I was hoping Deputy Bruton would filibuster for a while but there is only so much one can say about agriculture. Happily, I made my speaking slot.

We are now in a space where we have to disclose everything, which is important. I have skin in the game in that I am a farmer in County Clare. I am proud to be in transition to organic since 1 January of this year. Earlier this morning, before I left County Clare, we culled a cow - a 13-year-old shorthorn cow. She was a bit lame on her right hind leg. She had been an excellent breeder. She was a fabulous cow that we have looked after for many years. She has been a valued part of our herd but it was time to cull her on humane grounds because her walk was going and she was quite an old member of the herd. I think it makes sense.

When I went to college in Pallaskenry and did the green certificate, the whole concept of culling was very much spoken about. It was about keeping the breeding system in herds vibrant. Never did I hear anyone say that we should actually contemplate culling perfectly good breeding stock or perfectly good milking stock. That needs to be very quickly rowed back on and taken out of the national rhetoric because every time I tune into debates at the moment, there seems to be some discussion about culling some of the national herd or reducing it. In County Clare, where I am from, a lot of farmers have embraced organics and environmental schemes. They are willing to make changes. All these schemes are positive. The Minister has been very good in leading the process and in selling the positive message.

Specifically on the nature restoration law, again there are a lot of positives, but the one thing I cannot fathom how it would work in any practical way is rewetting. It is one thing if a farmer decides to plant all the land with spruce, Scots pine, fir or whatever species of conifer. That does not materially impact on the neighbouring land, but if farmers decide to rewet land, haggards, or whatever land their forefathers and mothers drained and toiled over, the rewetting does not just stop at one's linear boundary. If a farmer rewets 1.5 ft of topsoil and subsoil, that will spill over into neighbouring lands. The mechanics of rewetting as well involve blocking up old drainage systems. It could be an old rotten bale into the drain. Then there is the Bord na Móna system where it has undertaken some rewetting in the midlands. It is absolutely unworkable. I do not think it is practical. It takes out of production a lot of really good valuable land in Ireland. I am glad that Members of Parliament spoke in the debate at the European Parliament last week about how unworkable this particular proposal could be. I hope that in the cycle of European elections – the polling will be around this time next year – this issue will not have made it onto the agenda in a significant way by that time, and that it will fall off the political agenda thereafter.

The Ukrainian war has brought into sharp focus the need for us to have food security, food independence if one likes. That has been underpinned over the last decade where we have seen the population of the Twenty-six Counties increase by 1.2 million. We saw census figures yesterday showing counties in the west with population increases across five years of 7% to 9%. Who would have ever thought that? That had never happened since the 1830s. We are finally having a positive population rise. All of that needs a food bank or food source that can feed and sustain a high population, not just on this island but indeed overseas. In all of these debates we need to look first at our capacity as a country to provide food for our own population and also to provide food for export. It would be a retrograde step to take productive land out of use or to cull herds to a point at which it would become very hard to turn that around and start to increase capacity.

We have had many solid environmental debates here about Moneypoint and peat-burning facilities in the midlands. It is quite easy and feasible to wind back and wind up those facilities. They are burning facilities. It is quite difficult to wind back a national livestock herd and expect that we can crank it up again in a decade or two, as needs require. Anyone who looks at the indices of good quality breeding for the national herd will see that some of the lineages and DNA are hundreds of years old. Some of the breeds that are considered continental have been in Ireland for a long time. It would take a long time to rebuild the genetic stock that we have in Ireland and we would want to be very slow to do anything to affect it.

My final point relates to EU trade deals with third countries, which are mainly to the benefit of large vehicle manufacturers in Europe, and technology and biopharma companies. They are the beneficiaries. South American and other countries get a deal where they can sell cheap food into the European economy. We would want to look at a recalibration of that. I would much rather see cheap, high-quality food produced on this island than imported from overseas.

Deputy Réada Cronin

I would like to preface what I say here by asking anybody who speaks on this issue in the future to mind their language. In the past week, the rhetoric around rewetting in particular has been extreme and divisive. Rewetting is not flooding but who could blame any farmer who is busy on her land from thinking she is going to need a canoe if her farm neighbours Coillte land or Bord na Móna land.

I note too the talk just yesterday about culling the national herd, as if anybody, rural or urban, was under the illusion that we as a nation were rearing cattle into a long and happy retirement in our four green fields. This emotive talk might make cool headlines, but the issue is so critical for our children's future and for our island's future on a hotter planet that it will not be resolved in the media, on chat shows, in print or on the airwaves. It will be resolved by mutual respect and understanding about what needs to be done and how we can do it working together. We must do it because there is too much at stake to do otherwise. We all need to cool our jets, both literally and metaphorically. With records being broken this week alone in ice, air and surface water, it is no exaggeration to say that our children's future and humanity's future is right here in our hands as legislators. I believe we must be united in addressing this. We know that humans can do nothing in housing, health, transport or education unless we have a liveable planet. It is a fact, not an opinion, that there is no planet B.

On nature restoration and agriculture, I believe, as many people do, that farmers must be given incentives to make the necessary changes, not be given a rod for their backs. When I was a member of the Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action we saw wonderful farmers who had radically changed their minds and their methods and would be only too delighted to help their farming colleagues and farming communities to do likewise. Space must be made in this conversation for them. Change can happen with the right support. I believe we should be communicating better with farmers about collaboration and incentives. The communication on this has been woeful.

In Sinn Féin, we believe the nature restoration law has the potential to do what it says and also to meet climate targets, if the necessary reforms and adjustments are made. We appreciate how farmers, some of whose families have been farming the same land for generations, are anxious about the Government's proposals, which are far from clear and lack the necessary detail. We know they are anxious about rewetting and its potential to damage livestock farmers in the midlands and the west. We do not just talk to farmers; we listen to them.

As a result, we know the worries of farmers operating on peat soils and, indeed, their issues around funding and property rights, which also need to be addressed. The Government needs to listen and not lecture. It needs to rely less on mandatory and more on winning buy-in and incentivise, not penalise, because we need good change, which requires agreement to make it happen. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The Government simply cannot order farmers to make the kinds of changes it will not make itself. This kind of attitude makes communities dig their heels in. Although it is late, it is not too late to approach farmers in a more inclusive way, not with the big bata of government but with a juicy carrot. It is critical that the fear factor not just goes away but is put away. We are looking for transformation that is necessary to secure a future for human beings on a liveable planet. Making the transformation and taking that leap of faith is something we must do together. I just attended a meeting in Buswells Hotel with Wangari Kinoti from Action Aid. The people causing the rising fear factor are the same politicians who will give out about immigration and people coming into their hotels. The situation in Africa is serious. We better get serious about it. We have to do this for each other because we need good, modern change for humanity. The planet will survive without us. Human life will not survive on this planet unless we get our act together and stop talking nonsense about this.

Deputy Seán Canney

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter. I listened to the Minister's opening address. One of the biggest problems with this subject matter is probably the communication of what actually is or is not happening and how to decipher it. The Minister said this morning that the CAP fund will not be raided to support rewetting and that there will be a nature restoration fund of some description. We must find out more about that. Another important matter is that there are targets that will be binding in the proposals. Are they binding on individual countries or farm owners? This is where the problems arise. I also raise the issue of Bord na Móna, its 80,000 acres that will be rewetted and the consequences for people with land adjoining the company's land. Farmers were in Leinster House for a meeting a number of weeks ago; they were genuinely concerned. They want interaction and a meeting with the Minister. I think the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, was at it. It is important that the Minister for Environment, Climate and Communications, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine meet these farmers on the basis that if that amount of land is rewetted, it will increase the volume of water on that land, which will negatively affect the land adjacent. It is important that farmers are consulted and they know what exactly is happening before it happens so they get fair treatment.

We are talking about rewetting land and bringing it back to nature and all that kind of thing; at the same time, greenways are being proposed in special areas of conservation, SACs. All of this is going ahead without account being taken of nature. It is happening in my area between Athlone and Galway. SAC land will be crossed with tarmacadam and hardcore machinery. That is the proposal and they cannot go any other way with it. There must be equal status for people. Greenways are being built adjacent to people's houses and lands belonging to them are being severed. It is important that we realise what we are doing; we are driving communities against one another. I come from an agricultural background. I recall when I was a teenager shoring land that rejuvenated 7 or 8 acres for us at home, where we had a 30-acre farm. Every year since then, that land has been arable and has been grazed during the summer and mild winters. What will happen to that land in the future? Will it have to be rewetted because the bogs beside will probably have to be? What does that do for our independence in food supply? That is awfully important. There is a lot of discussion to happen yet on this matter. At the moment, in Europe, there is no discussion.

Deputy Matt Shanahan

Every Member can acknowledge the issue of global climate change. We can all agree it is a seismic challenge to the world order and future generations. While that must be acknowledged, the equitable distribution of responsibility across all countries must also be recognised. In our case, it is across our EU community. The latest census shows that there are 5.1 million people in Ireland. At this number, we are not even equivalent to a big city in Europe. Per capita carbon measurements for Ireland are suggested to be higher than for European neighbours, some of which can be attributed to our agricultural sector. The science of carbon calculation or, dare I say, the lack of it, is also interesting in respect of properly identifying carbon sequestration in our agricultural sector, such as the sequestration that occurs in hedgerows, afforestation and pastureland, along with the beneficial activities of tillage and livestock holding that do much to contribute to the indigenous life cycle of the biosphere. The present trajectory of discussion on rewetting, repurposing and restoration is being conducted in Europe, largely in a vacuum, with respect to any impact assessment of the overall impact on one of the highest-efficiency agricultural models in the EU community. European bureaucrats are examining Ireland's component of high-peat soil content, which hovers close to 18%, while much of the European mainland contains just 3%. Peat-based soils are being targeted for rewetting, repurposing and restoration but who will pay the fair share? Are we to do to our agricultural sector what we did to our fishing sector in the name of European integration? Shall we give away the farm in these restorations?

If we talk about climate change policy, we might talk about the Government's climate policy. The Government has appropriated 384,000 ha to climate change policy. That is 384,000 ha that are not available for farm families in the future to supplement their farm activities, biodiversity or rewetting, etc. Land costs in the country are hovering at €12,000 per acre while land rental per acre is hovering at €500 per acre. These costs are driving smaller farm families and rural farms out of the sector. Agricultural land is at a premium but the effects of this policy will drive it higher. The policy the Government is potentially acquiescing to in driving up land farm costs will also drive people out of the rural and regional community. What does the Government think of the rural community and our regional population in terms of the economic hit to rural and regional Ireland? I fail to understand that in these debates.

A big question is what lands will be repurposed over what period, in addition to lands that will be taken for afforestation, anaerobic digestion and every other issue that may help the European community meet its climate change targets. My uncle, of my own name, was involved in draining the Brickey river, a tributary off the Blackwater Valley in County Waterford, back in the 1960s and 1970s. Much land was reclaimed that is now part of farm holdings in west Waterford. Are those families to be told they must give that land back for the biosphere and biodiversity when they are already doing so much in that area? The impacts have not been qualified. I urge the Minister to seek a proper impact assessment by independent experts to examine what this policy means for Ireland into the future. I also highlight to the Minister and the Green Minister of State sitting beside him that while we discuss repurposing of land and rewetting, etc., there is a climate change agenda that is stuck in the mud. We have been in this Dáil for three years and longer and the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, MARA, has yet to be formed. We are talking about bringing coastal offshore wind in to help our energy situation and are probably, at this stage, anywhere from eight to ten years in getting that done. We have done nothing to promote hydrogen policy; we have not even produced our hydrogen policy statement, three years into the climate change agenda. Beyond that, we are failing to achieve what we need to for the future of this country, which is a recognition of the special, official place Irish agriculture holds in EU economic delivery.

At this moment, we have mulch coming up from South America to be used for biomass to generate electricity here. We have the potential for Mercosur beef to bring about the cutting down of the Amazonian rainforest and for that meat to be brought to the EU. At the same time, we are also talking about limiting and hurting the potential of the economy of our regions and rural areas. We must look at this situation in a significant way.

An Ceann Comhairle

We now go to a Government slot where Deputy Alan Dillon is sharing time with Deputies Flaherty and Leddin.

Deputy Alan Dillon

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the proposed EU nature restoration law. This holds immense significance for the wellbeing of future generations by addressing the urgent need to restore biodiversity loss and recognising the crucial role of restoring thriving ecosystems and habitats that have experienced a significant decline. The nature restoration law aims to reverse the decline of biodiversity and to secure a sustainable future for the generations to come.

The proposed regulation falls under the EU's biodiversity strategy and strives to restore degraded ecosystems through the implementation of binding targets. While I acknowledge the Government's support for the principles underlying the proposed nature restoration law, it is vital that it continues to actively engage with the European Commission and Council to clarify the issues for national policy, to enhance the drafting of the measure and to ensure compatibility with our national priorities.

I wish to emphasise the opportunities and threats the nature restoration law poses to our local communities, especially in the rural areas I represent. First, it is important that the targets set in this nature restoration law are realistic and adaptable to the unique landscapes of our regions. A clear understanding of the definitions of "restoration" and "rewetting" is of crucial importance. Accounting for the national conditions and distinct characteristics of our ecosystem is essential. Flexibility also plays a crucial role in ensuring the effective implementation of measures that can be tailored to our specific local needs.

Second, to achieve these targets it is vital that leading organisations, such as Bord na Móna, Coillte and others, take the initiative in implementing the necessary actions. If the targets and definitions are appropriately established, a significant proportion of restoration and rewetting efforts can be carried out on State-owned lands. Leveraging the expertise and resources of these organisations can greatly contribute to the success of restoration initiatives in our communities.

Third, it is of utmost importance that no farmers are compelled to undertake land use change. The decision to rewet their lands must remain voluntary and be adequately incentivised. This necessitates the allocation of new funding to support farmers who choose to participate in the restoration efforts. By providing the necessary resources and incentives, we can encourage voluntary participation and ensure a fair and equitable transition for our farming community, along with the use of State lands to achieve our proposed targets.

Through engaging in economic impact assessments and stakeholder consultations, we can develop a national plan that garners support from our rural and coastal communities. It is crucial to acknowledge the concerns of the communities that have dedicated generations to farming their lands. Striking the balance between ecological restoration goals and the needs of our farmers and rural communities is paramount. Their knowledge and insights are invaluable in sharing policies that work for everyone.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

I welcome the members of the Edgeworthstown active age group who are in the Public Gallery looking on. They asked me what we were speaking about today and I told them it was bogs. They said we do not have an awful lot of grá for bogs in this House, with the exception of Deputy Fitzmaurice, who was sitting behind my shoulder. I tried to emphasise that we do indeed have a great passion for our peatlands.

I welcome the latest revision of the text for the nature restoration law, which now sees significant flexibility included in the requirements. Thankfully, these include a softening of targets for the restoration of agricultural lands and, significantly, a move from targets to trend-based evidence for urban ecosystems. It is, of course, important to point out that the midlands are already seeing a significant nature restoration project as Bord na Móna undertakes rehabilitation measures in several of its bogs. Currently, the company plans to rehabilitate 33,000 ha, aided by significant funding from the EU.

The compelling argument from Ireland and specifically from the midlands must be that the safe and secure restoration of this 33,000 ha of land to its natural state will more than fulfil our commitments. To try to reclaim lands beyond this 33,000 ha is folly in the extreme. Bord na Móna has commenced rehabilitation works on 38 bogs since 2021. It is proposed that rehabilitation will commence on another 15 bogs this year. Across the midlands, these plans have caused some understandable concerns locally. There is a commonality in the issues arising and appertaining to many of the local bogs in my area.

A critical failure in the process, which has been referred to by several Members, has been Bord na Móna's failure to properly clean and maintain rivers, tributaries and drains, as it has done since taking charge of the bogs 60 years ago. As a semi-State company, when it began the development of more than 2,000 ha of bogs in Derryadd and Corlea bogs in County Longford, it needed an outlet for the vast volume of water to be pumped from the adjoining drains and tributaries. These rivers and drains were widened and deepened with the support of local farmers and on the basis that they would be maintained by Bord na Móna in future.

In its wisdom now, though, the company feels it can walk away from this responsibility for those drains and tributaries, while, at the same time, rewetting the bogs, accessing a €100 million rehabilitation fund and, crucially, in future accessing the decarbonisation-related benefits to be derived from these bogs and the undoubted revenue that will be created. The current position of the company is very much at odds with what was previously agreed with landowners, which was the facilitation of Bord na Móna's requirement to pump these bogs. Bord na Móna has agreed to maintain these and other rivers and drains and provide stock-proof fencing on both sides of rivers. Indeed, the company valiantly honoured its commitment from 1964 until recently. Bord na Móna must now reinstate this commitment because farmers and adjoining landowners need to see a proper plan for the management of their watercourses if we are to fully buy-in to the restoration project.

I also wish to raise a very local point with the Minister and Minister of State. This matter is not specifically within the ambit of their Department, but it is one close to the hearts of many Green Party Ministers and Ministers of State. I hope, therefore, that the Minister of State, Senator Hackett, can take this issue up with some of her colleagues. This weekend, locals in Longford alerted me to the resumption of pumping by Bord na Móna on sections of bog in the county where lapwing birds are nesting. The company opened drain outlets and re-engaged pumping, much to the distress of a sizeable lapwing population, as the nesting sites of these birds are now exposed. Bord na Móna must be much more cognisant of the impact of its actions on biodiversity and wildlife. Its actions last weekend were simply unwelcome and undermined public faith in its rewetting programme. I ask the Minister of State to follow up directly with Bord na Móna and her colleagues in government.

Deputy Brian Leddin

In politics and in history we recognise the tactic of divide and conquer. Another tactic, however, which is often more effective, is to unite a group of people in opposition to the wrong cause. This tactic is used to create a distraction and to get people fighting passionately against what might be in their own interests and the interests of the greater good. It suits some in politics and big business to create a bogeyman of the environmental movement and, indeed, of the Green Party. We hear the hysterical cries of the agrifood lobby and of those in politics who dance to its tune every time the slightest effort is made to change course, even by a few degrees, away from the unsustainable and environmentally calamitous profit for the few status quo.

Time and again, politics has yielded and bowed to the most effective lobbying effort in Europe. We have seen this in the context of the debate on the nature restoration law. The European People's Party, of which Fine Gael is a member in Europe, walked out of talks today. We have seen Sinn Féin, the main party in the Opposition, join forces with Fine Gael in Europe. When it comes to seriousness on nature restoration, it seems these parties are Tweedledum and Tweedledee. It is impossible to tell them apart.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

Sure ye are all the one.

Deputy Brian Leddin

It is shameful and pitiful that they have yielded to the interests of the few over the many. I say this with utter dismay because I have regard for my colleagues across this House.

It is mind-boggling that politicians are railing against restoring nature here and in Europe and are fighting to defend a broken system of overproduction and excessive intensification.

The agrifood industry does not represent the interests of farmers; rather, it represents a perverse reality where farmers have been driven by intensification to lower margins and longer hours. Farmers do not want to be part of a system that pays them poorly in the first instance and, when it does, pays them to engage in environmental degradation of the land they love and nature and wildlife they know better than almost anyone. They do not want to stand over the collapse of nature or the live export trade. Agriculture is the backbone of rural Ireland. It always has been, but for almost the entirety of our history it has been sustainable and can be sustainable again. The nature restoration law is a way to get it back onto that path, a path that works for farmers where they are paid for environmental services and their hard work is not contributing to the destruction of nature but rather the preservation and protection of it.

Deputy Carol Nolan

I welcome members of the IFA and ICSA from counties Offaly and Westmeath who are present for this debate. This is a very serious issue, as the Minister knows. There are well-founded concerns because he has not agreed with the calls for an impact assessment to be carried out. That request is reasonable. There are big calls for written assurances from Bord na Móna, which is a reasonable ask.

Reference has been made in the Chamber to scaremongering and everything else. It is incumbent on us as Deputies to be responsible, ask questions and protect livelihoods, food security and our local and national economy. That is prudent and sensible. I commend the EPP on withdrawing from the negotiations today. It recognised that there are flaws in the legislation. It is not just those of us in the Rural Independent Group who think that. The vote was defeated by a sizeable margin of 32 to 16. The Greens were isolated in the process. The ECR, democracy group and EPP all stood together. Fair play to them. It is a pity that we do not see more progress like that in this House. It seems that people have gone to the loony left and are afraid to call out and state the obvious facts. Do we want our economy and farmers' livelihoods destroyed? No, we do not.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I welcome the guests to the Gallery, who are the custodians of the land. I will take no lecture from our Green Party colleague from Limerick, Deputy Leddin. Farmers do not want incentives. They want to be left alone to look after the land they have nurtured and cared for for decades and generations. They do not need whizz kids from the Green Party with mad ideas telling them what to do. This is the problem. There has been no consultation or engagement. We have desperate experiences of Coillte and the neglect of its properties. We have the desperate experience of Bord na Móna and all State bodies. The EPA has not challenged county councils, including Dublin City Council, for pumping sewage into rivers, yet the Government wants to demonise and blackguard farmers, the people who put food on our tables. I ask the Government to withdraw this legislation.

We are not climate deniers, but there is real science out there that is alternative to what Government is peddling and has bought into. Those real scientists are being demonised, receiving hate mail and being cancelled. This is a bad situation. This is also happening with the migration debate. People cannot say a word without being demonised and being put into a bracket of the loony left or something else.

The Government is not respecting the electorate. The electorate has not given the Government carte blanche to do what it is doing. It is bad for Ireland. We need to feed our people and export everything else. Our people will be hungry if the Government implements its policies. It did more damage in 2007. I was a backbencher and saw what happened. The tentacles are still there. They are wreaking damage. What the Minister, Senator Hackett, is doing at this point in time is shocking and is antagonising ordinary farmers and the people. The Government should get down and engage with and talk to the people. Ní neart go cur le chéile.

Deputy Michael Collins

The attack on agriculture and farmers in this country by successive Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael governments is relentless. It was bad enough until they brought the Greens on board and there has been a complete sellout of agriculture in this country. I attended a farmers' meeting recently where a farmer said to me that the attack by Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Greens, Social Democrats, Labour and People Before Profit had made farmers feel like environmental terrorists as these poorly informed Deputies pointed the finger at them daily. Many farmers have told me they cannot wait for these parties to come knocking on the door. When the names are on the ballot paper, they will know where they stand.

Thank God, I know exactly what it is like for dairy and suckler farmers in this country. I also know the struggles the sheep and pig sectors are going through. It is all because of political parties' finger-pointing at the great people who are up day and night to put clean food on our tables. The new ludicrous plan is to wet our lands, as if one piece of wet land will not spread to a neighbour's land.

We have been asked to stop scaremongering here today. What the hell is wrong with those across the floor? There are nitrates targets. Farmers are on their bended knees and want to find out whether Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael will sell the agriculture sector and farmers because the Greens have wagged the tail and are walking. The Government sold the fisheries and is on the verge of selling the Irish farmer. It will never be forgotten for what it is doing.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

Recently, we had a meeting in County Kerry regarding the River Cashen. I want to explain why the meeting was held. It was held because of the proposed cessation of the national arterial drainage programme, the programme that engages the OPW to maintain waterways and sluice gates and prevent land from flooding. If we do what we want to do with the River Cashen, thousands of acres of fertile and useful farmland will become flooded. There is also the matter of 650 houses that would be affected. The Government is not thinking of those types of things at all.

I am glad to represent Castlemaine and hold a clinic there on a monthly basis. Constituents have told me what they think of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and, of course, the Greens. They know what the Government is proposing to do. I am very glad of the OPW in County Kerry and thank it for the work it has done over decades in maintaining rivers, streams and waterways. The overflow goes from all the way from Castlemaine to Castleisland. It is proposed to flood all of those areas if it the Government does what it wants to do, which is to stop the programme. I want to condemn it in the strongest possible way and remind it of what I said earlier today. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have lost rural Ireland. The Greens never had it, and that is it.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

I am glad to get a few seconds to talk about this very serious matter. It is the people on marginal land who had to work and drain their land to make it productive who will be hurt. We cannot flood fertile land. We cannot flood the plains of County Kildare, the Golden Vale in County Tipperary, east Cork or Limerick, but the Government will try to do it in south and north Kerry, which Deputy Michael Healy-Rae mentioned.

The poor farmers slave day and night in their fields alone, and sometimes with their wives and families, to try to help make land productive. This is what the Government is standing by and trying to force through without showing any clear understanding of what it is at. It is not telling the people what is happening. The new term being used is "nature restoration", but it started out with rewetting. It is horrible. What the Government is trying to do to poor people who made their land productive is to make it unproductive so they will have to vacate it.

I want to ask the Ceann Comhairle one question. How is a Senator in Dáil Éireann who was not elected to Dáil Éireann? Will he explain that to the House? How is that happening? I thought people had to get elected by the people to be in Dáil Éireann. Explain that to the House.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Deputy Senator Pippa Hackett)

You might want to read the Constitution.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

The Senator was not elected by the people. She came in the back door.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy, no. We will not have any more of this. The Minister of State, Senator Hackett, is more than entitled to be here. As she said, it is in total compliance with the Constitution. The Bog of Allen covers a fair stretch of County Kildare. Please, Deputies, control yourselves.

Deputy Michael McNamara

I thank the Ceann Comhairle. I was very surprised at what I thought was the Minister's introductory remarks when he cited the Burren Life project and the hen harrier project as examples of how things would proceed.

The Minister kindly gave me a copy of his speech. It said, "Another example of farmers’ engagement is the Burren scheme, funded by my Department for many years and as an EU LIFE project, recognised as best in class across the EU for its approach to working with farmers to conserve and promote biodiversity." However, that brings me very much to the issue of who will pay for this, because the fact is that farms across Slieve Aughty and much of County Limerick - I hope Deputy Leddin is still listening to this debate, because he should check what happened - were designated and the farmers were promised compensation. They got compensation in the Burren, Slieve Aughty and across areas that were zoned or designated as a hen harrier project, but the compensation stopped.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

That is correct.

Deputy Michael McNamara

There are no additional moneys now. I have raised this issue repeatedly in the Dáil. I raised it with Deputy Micheál Martin when he was Taoiseach and as Tánaiste, and I have raised it with the Minister, Deputy McConalogue. I have been told that senior officials are looking at the matter. Senior officials are still looking at the matter. We are in May, the scheme ran out last November and there are no concrete proposals to compensate farmers.

Farmers wait to be compensated for the designation. They received payments under the Burren Life scheme and they receive lesser payments now under ACRES. They received payments under the hen harrier project, but receive lesser payments now. In fact, they are still waiting for their payments under the hen harrier scheme. I asked the Minister's Department and was told it was nothing to do with the Department and the scheme was being implemented by somebody else, but the farmers are waiting. They have not even received the money they were promised and now they are promised nothing. Unless and until the farmers receive their moneys, they will not accept or believe this scheme will be anything other than punitive to farmers and that they will bear the brunt of it, instead of society as a whole paying for it. That is what they are promised, but farmers know otherwise, because they have experienced it. They have been sold down the Swanee by the Government. I ask the Minister to address the issue. If the Minister wants farmers to go along with him and have any shred of confidence in what he and what the European Commission says to them, the Government must adhere to what he said he would do, compensate farmers for being designated and stop the double talk.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I agree with the previous Deputy, in that the Burren was a total disaster when scientists were looking after it. When the farmers went back and showed how you should farm, their example was brought out everywhere around Europe and said to be great. The farmer in the Burren now gets ACRES. My young fella will get ACRES, even though he is not in the Burren.

Deputy Michael McNamara

I will get it.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Thus, let them not be shouting now.

Deputy Michael McNamara

I am not in the Burren.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I do not know where this is going, because people watching this evening are more confused now. The Minister came out with his statement to support this. Billy Kelleher, Fianna Fáil's MEP, has opposed it. The EPP has pulled out of talks today and said the proposal has gone too far. Our Taoiseach, 19 hours ago, stated very clearly that what is proposed goes way too far. The Minister talks about negotiating in Europe. My understanding is the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, and the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage will be doing it. There was a vote last week in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development; the committee voted against the proposal. There was a vote in the Committee on Maritime Affairs and Fisheries; it also voted against the proposal. My understanding in Europe - I am not an expert in it - is that it is an opinion, but it will be environment. I thank the Swedish, Dutch and Polish, but the Irish representatives or the Minister should not be thanked. Others have pushed back against this and, I hope, it is now dead in the water.

The Minister says the proposal will not be legally binding on people. Tell me of a proposal brought into a country that does not end up legally binding. What has the habitats directive done? It has put legally binding obligations on everyone's land that is designated throughout this country. There are 38 rules for farmers to comply with under legally binding stuff. The Minister should not tell people the proposal will not be legally binding. If the Minister reads the document and goes to Article 12, it says any subsidies given by the member state or the EU that may have a negative effect on that site have to be reported by the Government to the EU. What will happen? They will be withdrawn. If a farmer has sheep on a mountain or cattle ploughing up peaty ground, because it is rewetted, the farmer may end up having his subsidy withdrawn. The Minister should have a look at Article 4(2) which refers to rewilding where the Minister is from; the mountains in the west of Ireland. Bear in mind, one third of the country will be most affected. Kerry, west Cork, the west coast and the midlands will be caught with much of this.

The Minister talks about achieving this with State land. Bord na Móna can achieve a certain amount in 2030, but under Article 9(4) - it is highlighted - there are legally binding targets for drained agricultural peatland. No one can deny that. This is not scaremongering. I broke this story last July. We were told it would not happen. More people read the story and got involved. If it is scaremongering, why is the Taoiseach and the EPP going against it? Why does everyone say it is the Opposition? I see some parties in this House that will vote one way in Europe and say a different thing in this House, which I cannot understand.

No impact assessment was done on these proposals, which everyone looked for. No one talks about the terrain, or else people do not understand it. There are houses built in those areas in rural Ireland, on peaty soil. Some people's farms are 100% peat soil. If the Minister wants to do this in the State, he should do it on State ground. He must make sure it does not have a negative effect. The Government should be ashamed of itself, in that it has not forced Bord na Móna to give a letter to farmers or do scientific research before it does its work. In fairness to the national parks - we were involved in working with them - they talked to and worked with farmers. However, Bord na Móna, with the money its in arse pocket that Europe and the Government has thrown at it, seems to think it can bully everyone. That will not happen, nor will what the Government proposes happen. I hope it will be dead in the water in Europe, before the Government even gets the chance to look at it.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Deputy Martin Heydon)

Before I make my closing points, I acknowledge the confusion here. There is confusion for a very obvious reason, that is, there are currently two proposals in Europe. One of them is with the Council of the European Union, which represents national governments, and the other is with the European Parliament, which the MEPs discuss. They are very different. The Parliament proposal talks about a higher level of very strict interpretation that would be much more stringent, compared with the Council proposal, which is more conciliatory, if you like. Some Members of this House might be confused. I am not surprised members of the public are confused. Some Members of this House might use that confusion as a way of muddying the waters to try to score political points, but the fact is there are two different proposals and we are not at a final point. To talk about this as a binary proposal of nailed-on certainty is not right.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

It is a dolly mixture.

Deputy Martin Heydon

There are different proposals here.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

It is liquorice allsorts.

Deputy Martin Heydon

Some people in this House understand that very clearly, but have not articulated it.

These statements are very important. They are an opportunity to set out what Government does to ensure the concerns of rural and coastal communities around the nature restoration law are addressed. This is an emotive area, as we saw today, for those farming on peat-based soils. Thus, it is important we dispel some of the fear around this proposal. Since the publication of the commission's proposal last year, Ireland has been working with other member states to achieve a final outcome which strikes the right balance. The proposed regulation must work for biodiversity, but must also respect and consider farmers and fishers as the custodians of their environment, recognising their existing efforts in this area and their contribution to other areas, such as food production.

The Council's most recent proposal for regulation has provided significant flexibility, influenced by inputs from Ireland and other member states, which would support the delivery of the regulation's ambition, in a manner that is environmentally, economically and socially sustainable in an Irish context. That is one element of the proposal, that is, the Council side of things I talked about, which differs from that of Parliament. This flexibility includes the provision of a step-by-step, gradual approach to the delivery of targets. This will allow national plans to evolve, based on scientific and technical advancements and learning from the implementation on the ground.

Specifically, for the agricultural sector, the Council's proposed amendments allow for greater flexibility nationally, in determining the best approaches for restoration of drained organic soils, in light of national circumstances. We know Ireland's national circumstances are very different from those of many other European countries. This flexibility is very important to Ireland and it is why the Government has fought for it. The flexibility will allow State lands to contribute significantly in the first instance and this can be built on further, through voluntary and financially supported contributions from farmers and fishers who wish to do so, on a voluntary basis.

The text of the regulation is still a work in progress and that final text has not yet been agreed, a very important point to make here. The process of trialogue negotiations among the European institutions will determine the final outcome but we have been proactive in ensuring our national circumstances are reflected in the Council's proposal.

In his opening statement, the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, set out that many actions in the Irish agricultural sector are already delivering to protect and improve our nation's biodiversity. We can see the significant appetite among farmers to play their part through the sign-up figures for the new agri-environmental scheme, ACRES. Significant action has been committed to through rehabilitation of Bord na Móna lands, work under EU LIFE programmes and through sectoral strategies such as Food Vision 2030. Farmers are up for this and to ensure the most efficient and effective delivery we need to work with them in partnership. It is the only way we can deliver for the environment and farmers have the ability to do that.

Deputy Michael McNamara

Sure, the Department withdrew the funding for the Burren.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy please-----

Deputy Martin Heydon

Central government, local authorities and State bodies all have to play their part as well.

Deputy Michael McNamara

It withdrew its funding. What is the Minister of State talking about?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy McNamara is out of order.

Deputy Michael McNamara

Nonsense.

Deputy Martin Heydon

Together with those across the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors we have a really positive impact.

Deputy Michael McNamara

The man is talking nonsense.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy McNamara is out of order.

Deputy Martin Heydon

It is important too that the right funding mechanism is in place. The Deputy will not shut me down on that one. The CAP cannot be the sole delivery mechanism-----

Deputy Michael McNamara

Where is the funding? They are not getting funding.

Deputy Martin Heydon

The Deputy should let me make my point; I did not interrupt him.

The CAP cannot be the sole delivery mechanism for all obligations of the proposed regulation and we must fully consider all financial instruments available, including the opportunity to leverage private financial investment.

I again acknowledge the clear concerns over the proposed regulation. Our focus here is to achieve a proposal that reflects our national priorities and that works for farmers, fishers and the communities in which they live. Along with my ministerial colleagues in the Department, I will continue to work across government with other member states and the Commission to ensure that Ireland's particular land and sea usages are fully recognised and accommodated in the text of the final regulation when it is agreed in the coming months. That means that first, there must be prioritisation of actions on State lands and second, a voluntary well-resourced approach for privately owned land. An appropriate nature restoration regulation supported by a national plan with the buy-in of key stakeholders can be to the benefit of everybody and deliver the best long-term results.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Deputy Senator Pippa Hackett)

Before I start, I want to call out Deputy Danny Healy-Rae's nasty attack. I was elected to the Seanad and appointed to Cabinet under the Irish Constitution which he should go and read. How dare he cast aspersions on my right to be here. I find his constant tirades at me in this Chamber quite awful.

Anyway, I return to the debate at hand. As my colleague the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, said at the outset of this debate, this House declared a biodiversity crisis in 2019. It is essential that we act by bringing forward measures to halt and reverse that crisis. However, in doing so we must dispel the fears of rural communities and assure them that restoring nature will bring benefits to their way of life and their livelihood, their communities and, of course, the next generation.

Almost half the earth's animal species are in serious decline. Here in Ireland, we have lost 90% of our wetlands and we have also lost nearly 500 near-pristine freshwater sites since the 1980s because of pollution. We need to work collectively to address this and that means all of us. A significant amount of the public commentary on the nature restoration law has been focused solely on farmers, but this law goes way beyond farming to address coastal ecosystems, rivers, urban areas, Annex 1 habitats and many other areas. It can be really positive for our country if we get it right. It can be hugely positive for farmers too. There has been a lot of misinformation. Deputy Mattie McGrath said, "We are not climate deniers." He thinks the lady doth protest too much.

Restoring nature in this country is something many Irish farmers are already doing. Many farmers I know are passionate about the nature on their farms. They are the custodians of their lands and many of them are embracing and engaging in agri-environmental schemes, including Deputy Michael Collins who an organic farmer, engaging in LIFE projects across the country. They are turning to organic farming in the thousands, encouraged by Government which stands behind them and supports them to take these actions so they can prepare their farms for a sustainable future. Farmers want to plant native trees and they want to protect water. More than 46,000 farmers have voluntarily joined ACRES. More than 4,000 have become organic farmers and hundreds more are engaging in LIFE projects in specific areas across Ireland that specifically aim to restore nature and wildlife to some of our most precious habitats.

Nature restoration is already happening and the nature restoration law is happening. It is our job to engage with it and improve it every step of the way. That is what we have been doing to date and that is what we will continue to do. It is regrettable that some parties in the European Parliament have set their faces against it and in doing so deprived themselves of the ability to influence and improve it. As a Minister of State, I am committed to the nature restoration law.

I want to assure farmers across the country that despite what many are saying, nobody is coming for their land. The vast majority of rewetting targets to be met by 2030 and beyond can and will take place on public lands. However, any farmer who voluntarily wishes to take part will be paid to do so. That is a simple fact. Farmers are already doing this through the farm payments for ecological and agricultural transitions, FarmPEAT, environmental project, a project I launched in August 2021. We all know Irish agriculture has many challenges ahead, but we are making progress. However, there is still some way to go.

Productive farming of the future will be about more than just food production. It will require that food is produced in a way that improves water quality, restores biodiversity, cleans our air and reduces our emissions. Embracing system change is essential because tinkering around the edges will not suffice. It is also regrettable that the debate on the nature restoration law has opened up to old fault lines, pitching one group against another which simply serves to halt progress. Experience in this job has shown me that environmentalists and farmers can achieve amazing things when they work together. If we consider some of the fantastic work that has been done to date on our LIFE projects and in the efforts made on blanket bog restoration, nature and farming can coexist. It is absolutely vital we embrace it and stop the division.

We cannot allow this law to be derailed by disinformation. We must continue to work with Europe to deliver a law to restore nature across the European Union. We need to rebuff the narrative that being environmentally responsible and pro-nature is a bad thing. We have seen the demise of our natural world which is down to human activity including agriculture; that cannot be disputed. Therefore, doing nothing is not an option especially when it comes to nature restoration. It is incumbent on all of us in this House to reassure people across Ireland that this law can be positive for the country, for nature, for our farmers, for biodiversity and for species that need it to prevent their decline. Week in and week out, I see farmers embracing new ways of farming on their land. They are already delivering for nature and this law can further that cause by working with them. Together we can restore nature in this country to the benefit of everyone.

Deputy Michael Collins

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, on a point of clarification, the Minister of State used my name inside in the Dáil on private information she must have got only from her husband. I am not an organic farmer.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not a point of clarification.

Deputy Michael Collins

I ask her to correct the record of the Dáil, please.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Go raibh maith agat.

Deputy Michael Collins

Excuse me. I have to correct it because the Minister of State-----

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Deputy Senator Pippa Hackett)

I brought this up previously as well.

Deputy Michael Collins

And correct it both times. She should check the records; I am not. The only way she knows this is that previously, when I was, her husband inspected my farm.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Deputy Senator Pippa Hackett)

The Deputy and I have had conversations.

Deputy Michael Collins

She is using that private information from The Organic Trust-----

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Deputy Senator Pippa Hackett)

How dare the Deputy say that.

Deputy Michael Collins

-----to point the finger at me.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Deputy Senator Pippa Hackett)

The Deputy and I have had our own conversations about organic farming.

Deputy Michael Collins

I call on the Minister of State to prove to me what she said is right.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Deputy Senator Pippa Hackett)

I have asked him many times how his organic farm is going.

Sitting suspended at 4.50 p.m. and resumed at 4.55 p.m.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 31 May 2023