I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government with special responsibility for housing and planning, Deputy Penrose. I also welcome the officials from his Department: Mr. David Walsh, who is a principal officer; Ms Marian O'Driscoll, who is an assistant principal officer; Mr. Niall Cussen, who is a planner; and Mrs. Paula Donohue, who is a higher executive officer. I also welcome Mr. Bill Callanan, who is a senior inspector in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I thank them for their attendance. I wish to advise them that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given. They are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Penrose, to address the committee.
Planning and Development Regulations: Discussion with Minister of State
I thank the Chairman and the other members of the committee for agreeing to convene this session for the purposes of discussing the proposed amendments to the planning code, as set out in the draft Planning and Development (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2011. The proposals essentially provide for changes to the environmental impact assessment and planning-exempted development thresholds for agricultural activities on wetlands. I emphasise that we are talking today about wetlands only. The amendments also provide for new exemptions in respect of the use of permeable paving, agricultural rain water harvesting, portable waste disposal compactors and temporary advertisement signs for local commercial events. Technical amendments are being made to ensure full compliance with the environmental impact assessment directive and to reduce the charges for finger post signs.
These amending regulations are required to deal primarily with the important European Court of Justice judgment in case C-66/06, which was delivered on 20 November 2008. The judgment has been referred back to the court to seek fines for continued non-compliance. The court found that Ireland's system of environmental impact assessment screening for certain categories of agriculture-related projects is over-reliant on size thresholds and does not take other relevant criteria, such as the cumulative impact of development and the location relative to sensitive sites, into account. The activities affected by this judgment are the restructuring of rural land holdings, the use of uncultivated land or semi-natural areas for intensive agriculture and water management projects for agriculture, including irrigation and land drainage. The European Court of Justice decision necessitates a major reduction in the thresholds for the mandatory carrying out of environmental impact assessments and for environmental impact assessment screening for projects under the mandatory thresholds. In preparing its response to this issue, my Department undertook extensive consultation with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I thank the Minister, Deputy Coveney, and his officials for their co-operation and willingness to find a workable solution.
The two Departments have engaged with the Commission over the two years since the judgment to develop an appropriate response to the European Court of Justice findings. They reduced the environmental impact assessment and planning exemption thresholds for the three categories of activity cited in the judgment. They put in place a legal and administrative response that can be implemented by the farming community and local authorities. Nonetheless, the European Commission considered that Ireland had not gone far enough. It announced it was referring Ireland back to the European Court of Justice for failing to implement the 2008 ruling. The Commission is seeking that the court impose a lump sum fine of more than €4,000 per day for the period since the first court ruling, which was issued on 20 November 2008. That would equate to approximately €2.5 million to date. It also wants to impose a daily penalty payment of more than €33,000 per day, or approximately €12.5 million per annum, for each day after the second court ruling until the infringement ends. Clearly, it is in our collective interest to take all necessary steps to avoid such penalties at all costs and to introduce reforms that will satisfy the Commission and fully address the European Court of Justice findings.
Taking account of these points, we consider we have devised a response that combines the reduction of appropriate thresholds for mandatory environmental impact assessment and planning exemptions with a demonstration of how our planning, natural and archaeological heritage and farm payments systems are collectively assessing and managing sub-threshold developments to protect the environment. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, recognising the difference between on-farm development works that fall within the planning system and farming activities that do not constitute development - such as the removal of hedgerows, the combining of fields, the ploughing of semi-natural areas, seeding and fertilising and the maintenance of field drainage - is devising a separate environmental impact assessment screening and consent system, under its own legislation and responsibility, for certain categories. The categories in question are the restructuring of rural land holdings, such as the removal of field boundaries and the recontouring of land by infill; the use of uncultivated land or semi-natural areas for intensive agricultural purposes; and certain aspects of water management projects for agriculture such as field drainage, but excluding activities and development on wetlands.
The only element of the activities covered by the judgment that we propose to retain within the planning system is the drainage of wetlands. Accordingly, as set out in the draft regulations before the committee, we propose to amend the planning regulations to reduce the threshold for mandatory environmental impact assessment for drainage of wetlands from above 20 ha to above 2 ha. This reduction brings us in line with the threshold used in the UK and Northern Ireland for similar development. It is also proposed, given the environmentally sensitive nature of wetlands and the potential for minor development works to have a significant environmental impact, to replace the current full planning exemption for development in wetlands with a new planning exemption threshold of 0.1 ha. This threshold will allow for minor access works and maintenance, but any more substantial development will require a screening for EIA as part of a planning application. The Commission has evidence of numerous instances where significant damage to the environment has occurred on wetlands, even on a very small scale, for example, where the lands are drained by a small ditch. This can severely impact on the local environment. In our discussions, it was concluded that the only way to provide fully for EIA screening was to set the threshold at a level that would exempt only de minimis activities.
The proposed solutions have been developed in close consultation with the European Commission, and we are satisfied that the new regulatory system will provide clarity for farmers as to what is permitted and on the requirements for assessing the potential environmental impacts from developments and activities, particularly in environmentally sensitive areas. The draft regulations also provide for a stand alone exemption from the planning system for the other land reclamation activities covered by the judgment because, as stated, they will be subject to a new and separate consent system under the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I consider that the changes to the legislation strike a balance between implementing fully our requirements under the EIA directive and the need for a sensible approach to protecting our surrounding environment from the effects of development.
As members are aware, Ireland has been the subject of three adverse ECJ judgments in recent years with regard to its transposition and implementation of the EIA directive. It is perhaps stating the obvious that Ireland does not want to be on the wrong side of European Court of Justice judgments. From a reputational and financial perspective, there is much to be lost if we fail to fully embrace all aspects of the European environmental directives to which we must adhere. We must therefore bring Ireland's regulatory regime in line with our requirements under the directive. I understand that regulations on the new Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food consent system are currently being finalised.
My Department and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are preparing specific guidance to advise planning authorities, farmers and other affected parties the issues and considerations that should be taken into account in screening the type of projects I have referred to for EIA, including sub-threshold assessments. Input and advice is also being sought from the National Parks and Wildlife Service of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. This guidance will be based on criteria set out in the EIA directive and will update the principles and advice set out in my Department's previous guidance on sub-threshold EIA development, published in 2003. I intend to publish the amending regulations and accompanying guidance together to enable full understanding of the new procedures and legislative requirements.
The Department is continually considering ways of streamlining the planning framework to achieve a better alignment with key national policy objectives. The other amendments to the exempted development regulations which I am presenting to the committee are designed to realise the twin objectives of removing unnecessary regulatory burden, where possible, and, perhaps more significantly, facilitating the implementation of key areas of national policy such as energy and climate change.
The current exemption in class 6 provides an exemption from planning for the provision of a hard surface for parking to the front, side or rear of a house. Given the increasingly frequent trend of paving over entire residential garden areas to provide off-street car parking or hard landscaping under the exempted development provisions of planning legislation, my Department committed itself in the 2009 flood risk management guidelines to reviewing the provisions to ensure that only those complying with sustainable drainage principles will be exempted. This would help to limit the run-off which would otherwise contribute to overwhelming the drainage systems. Conditions are now being attached to this exemption, and areas greater than 25 square metres or 50% of the total area, while still exempt from the requirement for planning permission, must now be constructed, using permeable surfaces or otherwise allow for rainwater to soak into the ground.
While this exemption is concerned with the quick removal of rainwater run-off, I am also introducing a new exemption for the collection of rainwater from the roofs of agricultural buildings. In March of this year, the Department of Agriculture launched the rainwater harvesting scheme, which will provide grant-aid support for rainwater harvesting facilities and equipment. By introducing this new planning exemption for the provision of tanks to store rainwater, and the ancillary equipment to collect, and distribute the rainwater, it will, I hope, encourage uptake of the scheme and ultimately conserve water by maximising use of rainfall run-off, thereby reducing overall water costs on the farm.
I also propose to introduce a new exemption for the provision of portable waste disposal compactors. These compactors can play a key role, particularly in rural areas without municipal waste collection, to facilitate waste collection and, importantly, avoid illegal dumping. This exemption is added to the current exemptions provided for bring facilities.
The current economic situation has placed small businesses in a precarious situation, with every euro counting more than ever. I recognise that advertising is crucial to the success of any business, and it is with this in mind that I intend to reduce the licence fee for all fingerpost signs from €630 to €50, and provide a new exemption for temporary signage for local events carried out for commercial purposes.
I am also amending Article 9 of the regulations to provide clarity of responsibility between the ministerial consent system for notifiable actions within designated areas and the consent processes operated by planning authorities and An Bord Pleanála. This updates the respective responsibilities in light of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht's new legislative provisions in respect of the habitats and birds directive. Amendments are also being made to Schedule 5 of the regulations to ensure full compliance with the EIA directive following an amendment in 2009 to incorporate thresholds for carbon storage facilities.
I am fully aware of the importance of timely transposition and correct implementation of European Union environmental legislation. The challenge following transposition is effective implementation. In cases where the Commission feels that member states have failed to satisfactorily transpose European Union legislation into their national laws and implement it effectively, reaching a mutually acceptable resolution rather than facing a court case will always be the preferred option.
The European Commission's seventh annual survey on the implementation and enforcement of Community environmental law showed Ireland's overall performance to compare favourably in comparison to our European Union partners. However, there is still much work to be done. My Department, through the local authorities, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of Environmental Enforcement continues to work towards maintaining a high level of environmental protection for Ireland and to addressing alleged cases of infringement of European Union environment law. In light of the impending referral of Case 66-06 back to the courts, early approval by the Oireachtas is necessary to allow us to bring this case to a mutually satisfactory conclusion.
I commend the regulations to the committee and look forward to a full and detailed discussion.
Thank you. I now invite committee members to respond.
I thank the Minister of State for his statement which includes many practical and welcome initiatives, particularly with regard to signage. The farming organisations have lobbied and been in touch with us on a number of the issues covered in the statement. Will the Minister of State expand on what he said in his statement with regard to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? On page 4 of his statement he said that the Department is devising a separate EIA screening and consent system. Will he expand on and provide more information on that? On the issue of the wetlands, how narrow or broad will the scope and definition of a wetland be?
We will take questions from five members at a time and then the Minister of State will respond.
Why was this document, which was sent in with other material, not circulated? There is restricted circulation on it, but that should not include members of this committee. I do not understand why it was not circulated.
Has the European Commission given these regulations its blessing? I am well aware of the European Court of Justice judgment and that we seem to have sat on our hands for two years. Now, here we are at the 11th hour, just before a recess, deciding on something that is very complex, but we do not have sufficient information to make a determination. Has the European Commission given its blessing for this proposal? There is no point in us going back with this if it does not comply with what the Commission seeks us to comply with. We are part of the Convention on Wetlands and the European Union uses the convention's definition of wetland. However, we do not seem take the accepted definition that is taken by other European countries now. Why is that?
Can the Minister of State tell me why in-fill appears to be excluded? There are some good aspects in the proposals, such as the proposals on natural heritage areas. Many of our natural heritage areas have not been designated, but are only proposed for designation. Can the regulations be amended to include sites proposed for designation? I would like to see that happen because sites that are not yet designated are at risk because people may decide to take action before they are designated.
The new exemption allows farmers install rain water collection tanks. Why does this only apply to farmers? There is scope to go wider than that.
Will this place additional obligations on local authorities to enforce it? Will they have the ability to enforce it, given the embargo and their inability to enforce a series of unauthorised developments at the moment? Will we be going through the Coastwatch proposals? I would like us to do that.
I understand that this is a new Government. The last Government did not come up with regulations, even though it had since 2008 to do so. There is now a commitment to come into line. Given that there is an enormous amount of legislation required under the EU-IMF programme, does this give us the opportunity for an extension of time so that the system can be properly considered? This is quite complex, and it is being rushed without adequate time to assess it fully. I have a serious problem with that.
Coastwatch officials contacted us two weeks ago with a request to come before the committee. Today is our fifth meeting this week, so it was not possible to accommodate them with a hearing. However, we requested that they send us a submission of their views. The clerk's office received an e-mail from Coastwatch at 5.18 p.m. yesterday, which is a week and a half after we asked for a submission. That is the correspondence to which the Deputy refers, and it was sent to the clerk yesterday evening.
I got some correspondence, but I did not get this correspondence.
The correspondence to which the Deputy refers did not come into the committee secretariat.
I welcome the Minister of State and his officials to the meeting, and I thank them for the briefing. There is much to welcome here, but it is a bit like the curate's egg. I want to welcome some of the initiatives undertaken by the Minister. The reduction in VAT for signage is very helpful and helps to promote activity in rural Ireland. My colleagues will deal with most of the issues, but I am primarily concerned about it from a rural and farming aspect. The Minister's definition of wetlands would be helpful.
In the current recession, the one industry that offers us hope is agriculture, so we do not want any measures introduced which will have a negative impact on it. When the Minister of State talks about restructuring rural holdings, that sends shivers down the spines of many people in rural Ireland. Once upon a time, we were advised in Europe to take out every hedgerow, every ditch and everything in the country and that the holdings could not be large enough. That was followed by substituting or replacing hedgerows. Now there are proposals to regulate the system again, so it would be great if we could get over the definition of wetlands. If the Minister of State's aunt had a holding of two hectares - about five acres - in the countryside and was not well for the last few years, and if some of the drains on her land were blocked and the land became wet, does that mean planning permission would be needed to sort it out if the Minister of State wanted to take over the farm and put it into full production? There needs to be a clear definition of wetlands.
Farmers are the custodians of the land and are real environmentalists. They look after the land better than anybody else. When debating legislation on these issues, we often do not give them credit for that. What impact will this proposed new regulatory system being introduced by the Minister of State have on existing schemes in agriculture? We have a code of practice and a REP scheme in agriculture, and many of those issues are dealt with under these headings. What changes, if any, will be made to those schemes?
The Minister of State spoke about a new regulatory system. Who will police that regulatory system? Does that mean additional bureaucracy for the farming community and additional inspections? What level of consultation has taken place between the Department, the rural community and the farming bodies in the lead-up to the proposals for the schemes that are being brought forward? It might be helpful for us if the Minister of State outlined what the European Court of Justice found unfavourable in respect of the agricultural issues about which he was speaking.
Is there currently funding for the rainwater harvesting scheme? Is the scheme alive at the moment? There are several positive aspects in it that need the support of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
While I welcome the scheme, I would like the Minister of State to allay fears that hewill interfere. He said that it deals totally with wetlands, but I would like him to define that term specifically. The definition in the statutory instrument is very open to any interpretation. I would like to see it pinned down to ensure that the existing practices in agriculture will not be affected, and that farmers will not have to be looking over their shoulders in respect of environmental impact assessments, appeals to An Bord Pleanála and other statutory impediments to a business that has the potential to bring us out of our difficulty.
I have a long list of speakers. I want to allow people to ask supplementary questions, but I need committee members to be accommodating in order for that to happen. There are 20 of us in the room and if we all spoke for three minutes each, that is one hour. People should be concise and specific with their questions.
I welcome the Minister of State and his officials. This is not my area of expertise, but I wanted to ask a couple of questions. Are these measures all designed to address the European court ruling? There are some very welcome elements in respect of portable waste disposable compactors. Others will be looking on when they see this coming and maybe others will be looking to exploit it in the community. How are they dealt with when they build up waste? Are they buried locally or is there some arrangement to move the waste? The burning of items on farm land has been a big issue over the years. I would like to have seen a picture of an example of permeable paving so I could understand what it is. I would relate something permeable to the soil, but there could be other things such as sand, and I am not clear about that. It is hard to get a picture of the area involved around the house or the building.
There has to be a balance to how people deal with this. We should not make it too bureaucratic, add expense and make it difficult for people locally to get these things done. We create too many planning laws and I am concerned that some of them will have a detrimental effect on people who have lived in the area for many years.
I welcome the Minister of State and his officials. My first point is on the failure to transpose and implement judgments of the European Court of Justice and European directives. This has financial implications for the public purse and environmental issues arise also. I am a long-standing critic of the State's failure to transpose and implement a range of directives, particularly those concerning the environment. Will the Minister of State or his officials apprise us of the number of outstanding European Court of Justice rulings and directives to be transposed and implemented with regard to the Department? Will he apprise the committee of the amount of money the State had to pay in fines in 2010 due to the Department's failure to comply with EU directives and European Court of Justice rulings?
I welcome the dramatic reduction in charges for fingerpost signs. It is a very progressive, practical and pragmatic measure which recognises the commercial challenges faced by rural communities. I seek guidance on commercial signs for one-off events. We are trying to encourage festivals and tourism, but throughout the country one sees signs for events which took place six months previously. These represent a blight on the landscape. What does the process involve? Will recommendations or guidelines be enacted on how long prior to an event signs can be erected and when they must be taken down afterwards? It is important to have guidance on this.
We have until 23 July to respond to this so we do not have much time. I will furnish Deputy Nash with information on European Court of Justice rulings and infringements along with information on fines. We have a significant amount of work to do and the last thing we want is to spend very scarce money for which we have many alternative uses on paying fines.
A vote has been called in the Dáil. I propose we suspend the meeting until after the vote is concluded.
I wish to clarify one matter on Coastwatch correspondence which arrived on Tuesday at 5.18 p.m.
On the matter raised by Deputy Catherine Murphy, the correspondence did not come to the committee secretariat. I will speak to her at the conclusion of this meeting because if notifications are made that correspondence is to come to a committee within a certain period of time the Department is obliged to comply with that. I will need to examine her correspondence in further detail and if I believe there was an error in communication or correspondence from the Department I will write to it on behalf of the committee requesting that the practice be examined.
The difficulty with that is I believe the information was essential for us. We will be making decisions without the benefit of it.
I understand that. I need to examine the issue before I can decide what action I can take.
Okay. I thank the Chairman.
As I said, we do not have a lot of room to manoeuvre. We were placed in a position where we had to act. The ECJ was ready to impose substantial fines. I have a lot of alternative areas to devote money to, as has the Government, rather than paying fines. That is an important point. It is important as a general principle that when a European court hands down judgments against a particular member state that we become involved immediately and try to deal with the issues, rather than putting them on the long finger with the result that we have to pick up tabs which we are not able to afford at this time and which would impose a significant burden upon people.
There are a lot of legacy issues which have to be dealt with. I am sure people will not point the finger at me as a Minister of State when I try to deal with legacy issues. We have an obligation to do so and I intend to do so.
The definition is important. Deputies Dooley, Collins, Coffey and Coonan and others in rural areas referred to wetlands. For the revised class 11 exemption wetlands are defined based on the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. It has been agreed by the NPWS and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that saturated soils include the following Irish habitats: lakes, reservoirs and ponds, turloughs, rivers and canals, swamps and marshes, flood planes that are permanently or periodically inundated with water including callows, peat lands, wet woodlands, caves, cliffs, salt marshes, dune slacks, transitional waters such as estuaries and lagoons, and intertidal habitats to 6m below the lowest spring tide level.
The guidance will translate these technical specifications into understandable descriptions and standards for farmers and planning authorities. Therefore, they will be elaborated on in that context. Wet glades are not included, which is an important point.
There have been a number of meetings with the representatives of the main farming bodies. There was a meeting in January prior to the Commission's intention to refer the case back to the ECJ to determine fines. There was another meeting in the past couple of weeks.
There is sensitivity about some of the activities on which farming bodies have made their points. It is important that it does not become tied up in a bureaucratic nightmare and quagmire like so many things. The guidance will be extremely important when it is issued, in terms of enabling the planning authorities and farmers to ensure they are acutely aware of the various points raised.
Deputy Murphy asked if the Commission was happy with the threshold on wetlands. The answer is it is. After a huge amount of discussion it was eventually happy. The Deputy also referred to wetlands. The information will be set out in the guidance document. Infill is covered by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food system which it will implement and is not included in the regulations.
One of the Deputy's key questions concerned the national heritage areas covered. They do not have statutory status but full national heritage areas are covered. The issue of proposed national heritage sites has been covered in guidance and also in development plan objectives.
On the matter raised by Deputy Ellis, only the on-farm issues are covered. Burning rubbish is not covered under planning regulations but under the litter and air pollution Acts. I understand the point on permeable paving. Products are available and areas of 25 sq.m or half the area are included. Most members are aware of the risk of flooding in terms of having total surface cover. Hopefully this will introduce a degree of common sense. I refer to hollow blocks, gravel and strips. If an issue arises, I presume some guidelines will be required and these will be issued when the regulations are made. The licensing of waste compacters will be done under theWaste Management Act.
Deputy Coonan asked about the restructuring of field boundaries. My colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, will deal with this matter. He asked about the difference between wetlands and wet land. The difference is strictly defined in regulations. The guidelines will be expanded in that context. The farming community has a point and Deputy Coonan has made it eloquently. It is important that the difference is clear and unambiguous and that only those particular areas are covered. We all recognise that land becoming a bit wet over the winter period does not fall within the definition of wetlands in the regular system of farming. It is important to avoid any ambiguity in that context.
Deputy Coonan made a very good point about the regulations and their interaction with existing agricultural schemes. Deputy Dooley gave me the lowdown on that point. Substantial restrictions are in place with regard to hedgerows and fertilisers under REPS and the agricultural environmental schemes. We will examine the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food guidelines with regard to the cross-compliance regime which already exists.
In that case should the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture, have an involvement in these proposals? Should it not be clarified for that committee?
It is hoped the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food guidelines will be a clarification. That Department is working through its own guidelines which have not been finalised as yet. Our legislation has to be brought into line with the EU directive. Unfortunately, the Commission does not take account of administrative controls. The key findings of the court was that the thresholds were too high with no reference to the wider considerations, for example, the cumulative effects and the sensitive locations. These were strong findings. I looked over the case and I made a note.
Deputy Gerard Nash asked about the failure to transpose EU directives and referred to the significant number of infringements. I will ascertain more details for the committee and I will provide each member of the committee with an update as to which directives have not been transposed and our exposure. No fines were ever paid out to the EEC. The closing date is 23 July.
On the question of the management of signage, I took a particular interest in this issue. In many parts of Ireland, both rural and urban, temporary signs are put up to publicise events. Local authorities were acting within the law by taking these signs down. This regulation will provide for a period of seven days prior to the event and three days after the event. It is like the provision regarding election posters under the Electoral Act which provides seven days to remove them and otherwise a fines regime is in place. If such a regulation is good enough for people who stand for election then it is a fair regulation for these events. The organisers will now be given an opportunity to advertise their wares or exhibitions or whatever the event but there must be compliance. Deputy Nash has made the point that posters cannot be left in place for three or five months and they become litter. It is hoped that people will obey this regulation providing for ten days - seven days before an event and three days after an event. Non-agricultural areas are not included in the wetlands definition.
I thank the Minister of State for the opportunity to engage with him and his officials, belated as it may seem. The Minister of State has inherited a legacy issue as this ruling was handed down in 2008, more than three years ago but little or no action has been taken. I am sure all of us as Members of the Oireachtas agree we should not expose the public purse to fines handed down by the European Court of Justice. We have been left with the problem and we have to address it. I want to express the concern among farming communities about what they perceive to be an over-regulation. We must consider that one of the significant recovery planks for the economy is the Harvest 2020 programme which means agriculture. We often hear complaints from constituents about over-regulation and the Minister of State referred to it in his presentation when he said he wishes to reduce the burden of over-regulation but as a result of this European Court of Justice ruling, action has to be taken and some regulation will result. I note an official from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is present but I contend we should be given a complete picture of the legislation that will apply as a result of this European Court of Justice ruling. We are only getting piecemeal information. I know this is the only piece for which the Minister of State, Deputy Penrose, is responsible but I am not sure if there is any mechanism within the Oireachtas where officials from the two Departments can come together to present to us the complete picture of legislation and regulation that will be required to respond to this European Court of Justice ruling. The reason I say this is because we are only dealing piecemeal with it. To allay concerns, it would be welcome if the Minister of State's guidance document could be brought forward to assist this committee in understanding the reasons we must comply and the areas of regulation which he intends to address. I do not know what is happening on the other side in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and it is important that we have all the information together in one piece. I ask the Minister of State and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to consider this proposition so all stakeholders are fully informed on any of these regulations which will have an impact on rural Ireland.
The cost element of environmental impact assessment has to be taken into account. Has any thought been given to the level of development levies to be imposed by local authorities? I appreciate some exemptions obtain for agricultural buildings but will the same exemptions apply for the likes of this? We need clarification of these issues if we are to have a workable solution that takes the opinions of the very people we require to be compliant with these regulations.
The Minister of State also mentioned the efforts of the farming community in existing schemes, for instance, the Wildlife Act, REPS and in cross-compliance. We must all acknowledge the significant progress in communities with regard to cross-compliance in environmental matters. Will the Minister of State confirm that this progress has been conveyed to the European Commission and that the latter has acknowledged it, despite the fact that we have not responded to the ruling?
To bring stakeholders with us and ensure everybody is fully informed, it would be helpful if the guidance document were published. Will the Minister of State or Mr. Callanan indicate the status of that document? These are important matters which will have a significant impact on rural Ireland.
Many of the issues I planned to raise have been covered by previous speakers. I welcome the Minister of State and the forthright and practical way in which he is dealing with this legacy issue. His understanding of all aspects of Irish life puts us in a good position to secure an appropriate outcome, which, if not to everybody's satisfaction, will certainly deal adequately with the court case and the potential fines.
The proposals concern me primarily from an agricultural perspective, coming as I do from a county surrounded by water on three sides. Clare is bordered by the River Shannon Callows on its eastern side, by the estuary on its southern end and by the Atlantic Ocean on its western seaboard. The county is famous for its tourist attractions and nobody wants to injure the landscape and its amenities. Farmers are the very last people who would wish to do so, as they see themselves working side by side with the tourism sector and other areas. The greatest concern among the farming community is the vagueness as to the definition of wetlands. I urge the Minister of State, at the earliest possible opportunity, to bring forward some type of an imaging or mapping system which clearly sets out the areas to which a designation will attach. I accept that the broad definition of wetlands is such that it may be somewhat difficult to do so, but it would be a helpful resource.
Perhaps the Chairman would send a message to the Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture requesting or suggesting that the latter arrange a meeting with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Simon Coveney, and his officials to discuss these proposals in detail in terms of how they will impact on farming. I am conscious that it is not within the remit of this committee to focus solely on agricultural issues. Nevertheless, I would be interested to know whether the Minister of State and his officials have met, or plan to meet the farming bodies to ascertain their perspective and concerns? A dialogue between the Department and farming communities would be useful.
I propose that we take on board Deputy Dooley's suggestion to contact the Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture on this matter. Is that agreed? Agreed.
We are all agreed that we must have measures in place to protect the environment. In that context, I welcome the measures on signage. In a previous incarnation as a local authority member, this was an issue on which we lobbied. The introduction of a one-off €50 payment in respect of a licence for a finger sign is welcome. Many small businesses are struggling, particularly in rural areas, and it is vital that potential customers can locate them without difficulty.
I have serious concerns regarding some of the other measures proposed in the legislation, particularly the changes to the exempted development status. Whereas previously one could drain 20 hectares of wetland without planning permission, the limit is being reduced to one tenth of a hectare, or less than one quarter of an acre, in affected areas. This means, for example, that an exemption would not apply if one wanted to drain one eighth or one sixth of an acre. That is unworkable, as is the measure requiring that an environmental impact statement be produced in respect of any drainage undertaking of wetlands over 2 ha, which is less than 5 acres. The cost, time and effort associated with that make it totally unfeasible. I join other members in seeking a clear definition of wetlands. I have had this discussion with officials at the National Parks and Wildlife Service but am no clearer on it.
The point has already been made about existing restrictions. One of the issues that bothers me is that in recent years there were justifiable concerns about the rural environment and some agricultural practices, to which farming organisations and individual farmers have responded admirably. Huge progress has been made throughout rural Ireland in this regard and an extensive range of measures is already in place to protect the environment. In that context, is it necessary to introduce this completely new set of measures to supersede all that went before?
I am also keen to know how these regulations will be policed. Will the National Parks and Wildlife Service require a suite of helicopters to go around taking aerial photographs? Will we be reliant on people shopping their neighbours? What are the implications for local authorities, some of which have lost more than 20% of their staff as a result of the recruitment embargo in recent years? There is potential for wasting taxpayers' money in terms of how the implementation of these measures is monitored. Given the implications of the proposals for agriculture, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Simon Coveney, must be invited before the committee to explain how he envisages their implementation. An overbearing restriction such as this, whereby people will require planning permission to drain less than one quarter of an acre of land, seems incompatible with the Government's targets in regard to Food Harvest 2020.
Will the Minister of State indicate how many other EU countries, particularly those in western Europe, some of which have drained almost their total land area, have had to comply with regulations such as these? How many of the countries that are telling us we must do this have been subjected to regulations even one quarter as restrictive as these when they drained thousands upon thousands of hectares of their own lands?
I thank the Minister and his staff for attending the meeting. I welcome elements of these provisions. For example, the measure in regard to permeable paving will be helpful in reducing flooding in hard limescale areas. I also welcome the regulations regarding signposting and the exemption on compactors. In regard to the rainwater harvesting exemption, are there plans to extend it to other rural householders? Many people in rural areas are not necessarily in the agricultural business but would have a use for rainwater and would be happy to use it rather than always turning on the taps. That should be considered.
In regard to wetlands, many of my questions have already been addressed. My constituency, being in the River Shannon catchment area, is familiar with flooding. I am a firm believer in consultation when these types of measures are being introduced. I urge that there be consultation in respect of any measures which impact on the farming community in order to give people clarity on what is being proposed and allow them to have an input and perhaps identify difficulties at an early stage. Other speakers referred to the confusion regarding the definition of wetlands.
I am concerned about the length of time it will take to implement even minor works given the planning application process that must be gone through. That might have a negative impact and deter people from making improvements. We are all aware that recognition of weather patterns, etc., is essential in the context of agriculture. If work is put off as a result of delays in obtaining planning permission or environmental impact statements, it will have an extremely negative impact on economic activity that comes about on foot of activity in the area of agriculture. I refer to contractors who might be brought in to carry out drainage works and so forth. I am somewhat concerned with regard to this matter.
I am also concerned about the additional administrative work members of the farming community will be obliged to carry out. These individuals already have a heavy workload in that regard. Agriculture is one of the most regulated sectors in the country. The amount of administrative work which those who work in it are being obliged to do is really excessive. Will the introduction of these regulations give rise to a duplication in respect of the other statutory management requirements which members of the agricultural community are already obliged to satisfy? I would not like such a duplication to occur.
I agree with the recommendation which relates to obliging the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to report to the Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture and also to this committee. The detail relating to how what is envisaged will be rolled out is extremely important, particularly in the context of how it will be administered and what will be the impact on those who will be obliged to implement it. This is a matter about which we must be informed as soon as possible.
On a point of clarification, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will not be obliged to come before this committee. The Minister reports to the Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture. We are proposing that said joint committee should engage with the Minister on the matter and that members of this committee be free to attend any meetings held in that regard.
I welcome the Minister, his officials and the representative from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is vital that the latter individual is present.
I welcome the proposals regarding rainwater harvesting on farms. Like other members, I also welcome what the Minister of State said about temporary advertisement signs and various other measures. I am anxious to highlight some of the proposals set out in the context of the requirements for farmers seeking planning permission or consent for land reclamation. There is major concern about how these requirements will apply in respect of specified wetlands. Clarification is needed with regard to wetlands, callows, tullochs, flood plains, etc. As other members indicated, full planning permission will be needed in respect of projects in excess of 0.1 hectares and an environmental impact assessment will be required for projects in excess of 2 hectares. For all other land, it is expected that farmers will be obliged to obtain consent from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. This will open up the possibility of a new raft of inspections and of costly administration. This represents a draconian and excessive response that will result in many farmers deciding not to proceed with projects.
It is particularly insane that in some instances farmers will be expected to obtain environmental impact assessments. In my opinion, the proposals, as set out, will reduce economic activity in rural areas. In light of the fact that such activity is relatively labour-intensive, this will lead to a loss of jobs on the part of plant hire contractors, suppliers, quarries, etc. In addition, it will lead to a reduced demand for grass seed, drainage pipes and so on. On the other side of the equation, public administration costs will rise and planning officials and their counterparts in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be obliged to carry out extra work. There will be a corresponding increase in travel and subsistence costs to cover all of the utterly wasteful farm visits that will be required - as many as four - before a project commences and possibly when work has been completed.
I suggest that it would be detrimental to proceed with the regulations as they stand. In such circumstances, a number of amendments should be considered. These are: that the vast majority of applications for consent from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should be handled without officials to carry out unnecessary farm visits; that environmental impact assessments should be required only in respect of projects of the largest scale and only where a desk-based examination suggests an adverse impact on areas that are either environmentally sensitive or important; that the scope for third parties to submit objections should be curtailed; and planning and compliance costs should be minimised and local authorities should be constrained from using this process as another cash cow.
The committee should consider the statutory instrument in greater detail and an economic assessment should be undertaken in respect of the proposals it contains. Firm guidelines should be put in place to ensure that there will be a consistent approach on the part of all local authorities. These should be framed on the principle that land improvement is, in general, of positive benefit to the economy and that farmers make an outstanding contribution to our diverse rural landscape and will continue to do so in the absence of intrusive bureaucracy. While consent may be required, there should be no question of officials having any role in influencing a job specification, the type of materials used, etc. Where a planning application is required, the old modus operandi of planning officials responding at the last possible moment with a long list of questions that delay the process by months should not hold sway. There should be ongoing monitoring of what is proposed to assess its impact on economic activity. At a time when the Government is desperately trying to support jobs and economic activity, the proposed regulations will achieve exactly the opposite. In many instances farmers will decide that in view of the level of bureaucracy, the potential compliance costs and the general bother involved, proceeding with projects will just not be worth the effort.
Obviously, this is not the area in respect of which I would have begun my work but our backs are against the wall and we do not have the luxury of reopening the debate or challenging the ruling. Matters are far too advanced for that and we are beyond the stage of negotiation. We already argued that there are comprehensive administrative systems in place. However, compliance with directives requires legislative compliance in addition to appropriate implementation processes, such as those relating to cross-compliance. The court has already found against us on legislative grounds. In order to avoid heavy fines, therefore, we must reform our system.
The planning proposals only focus on development that impacts on wetlands. I have written a book on agriculture and the law and I am of the view that what is proposed will not have an impact in respect of huge areas of land. Wetlands are well defined and normal field drainage works will fall under processes relating to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. What is proposed will, therefore, have a limited impact. The reason the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was brought into the equation was to ensure that concerns relating to agricultural activity would be recognised and that the various cross-compliance systems that are in place would be acknowledged. The position with regard to these issues has been explored since January and intensive, ongoing discussions have been taking place.
The legal advice and the caseload indicate that thresholds should only be set at de minimis levels in respect of minor works and that anything more substantial should at least be screened for environmental impacts. Deputy Coffey made a good point with regard to over-regulation acting as a deterrent. In this instance, however, I am hoping that a degree of common sense will apply in respect of the regulations. Deputy McLoughlin also referred to this matter. The guidance document should be issued in order, as Deputy Coffey stated, that people might obtain the complete picture. The planning fee will be €10 per 0.1 hectare.
Everyone should acknowledge the advances that have been made. I acknowledge that farmers are the principal custodians of our environment and our land. They look upon the latter not only as a means of production but also as something to be left to their children and grandchildren. As such, they will seek to leave it in pristine condition. Significant advances have been made in the context of the environmental works carried on farmland. A number of the schemes that were undertaken have made a tremendous contribution in that regard. Farmers adapted to meet the various challenges that arose in respect of such schemes.
A number of members referred to rainwater harvesting systems. A sum of €8 million was originally allocated in respect of this scheme and the closing date for applications was mid-June or thereabouts. However, the scheme is now subject to the comprehensive spending review. Like Deputy Corcoran Kennedy, I would like this scheme to be extended to domestic dwellings. We should return to the system whereby, in the context of planning permission for building houses, people were encouraged to harvest rainwater. Perhaps I should see to it that this will be built into the planning element, not as a bureaucratic mechanism but as something which might prove positive for those who are faced with the prospect of paying household charges. The position with regard to schools and public buildings could also be taken into account in this regard. I am of the view that this will be a positive development.
I am always open to positive suggestions. I do not care where a positive suggestion comes from and am eager to take it on board as long as it is workable and practical.
With regard to new levels, I appreciate what Deputy Stanley said about the exemption threshold. That has been explored along with the definition of "wetland".
The National Parks and Wildlife Service is a designated body. Cross-compliance inspectors and planning authorities will oversee the system. I have been asked about designation. If an area is formally designated, it removes all scope for development. This is important to note. In the context we are considering, there can be development; it is just that permission is required. It is a matter of protecting certain landscapes by providing appropriate assessments. When the latter are furnished, local authorities are free to proceed accordingly. The assessments comprise one consideration in the overall context.
Deputy McLoughlin made a number of points, several of which I have heard before. The purpose of bringing other elements into the system of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is to make it more streamlined and responsive to agricultural concerns. I take the Deputy's point in this regard. The reality is that wetlands are among the most sensitive sites and, therefore, thresholds must be set low.
I agree on the point on consultation. There was some consultation but I would like to see pre-implementation discussions so people will have an input into the forthcoming legislation. This is the way forward in that there would be greater buy-in. In the circumstances in question, we must have our submission made by 23 July.
Deputy Corcoran Kennedy referred to delays in planning processes and appeals and to the need to factor these into major works. Deputy Stanley referred to these also. I hope the system does not become a yo-yo system such that applications will go up and down and officials will be asking for further information at the last minute. We should indicate to local authorities that they should examine guidelines in this regard and that if additional information is required after the five-week period, it should be sought immediately.
There are strong links with cross-compliance, as implied by Deputy Corcoran Kennedy. She made a very strong argument on the differences between administrative and formal legislative systems.
I referred already to Deputy Dooley's concerns. He made me aware of the definition of "wetlands" for the past few days. I know he understands my point on designation and wetlands but it is important that it be spelled out. One can understand my reasoning. The Deputy wanted to know whether the guidelines would cover examples. I believe they will.
Reference was made to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Coveney, attending meetings of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I do not have any control over this but I note the Deputy's point and will relay it to those concerned. The Chairman indicated he is taking steps in this regard.
Is there any indication as to when the guidance document will be published? Will it be after the statutory instrument is implemented? How far advanced is it?
It will be before implementation.
Beforehand.
I welcome the Minister of State from my constituency to the meeting. I always like to call a spade a spade. As a farmer, I believe that, through the regulations, Europe is once again putting the screw on Irish farmers. Following the turf-cutting directive, Irish farmers are once again subject to over-the-top EU environmental regulations. The Union has gone mad in that it now expects farmers to produce an environmental impact statement if carrying out simple drainage works on their farms. This is the message from farmers throughout the country.
We are told we can gloss over this but when the regulations are in place, the bureaucracy and red tape farmers will have to endure will be unbelievable. I know this based on other regulations pertaining to the agriculture industry. This is an attack on property rights and the traditional freedoms of farmers to farm their own lands, and it will also have an impact on the removal of field boundaries, as referred to by Deputy Coonan.
As the Minister of State knows, the regulations are particularly detrimental to farmers in Longford and Westmeath, where there is a considerable amount of marginal land. The regulation will also apply to the Shannon Callows, turloughs, swamps and marshlands.
The midlands were badly hit by the serious flooding last year and the year before. I know of farmers from parishes in Longford and Westmeath who still need waders to walk on their properties. They will not be able to save fodder this year. The Minister of State is invited to visit them. I meet them every other day. The Minister of State responsible for the OPW, Deputy Brian Hayes, visited recently and he was shocked to see the state of the lands.
How will already-hard-pressed farmers be able to afford the high cost of an environmental impact assessment? It will be a catch-22 situation for many farmers nationally. They will not be able to improve their farms and, consequently, their incomes. Without an environmental impact assessment, many will be unable to afford to live on the land. Those of us familiar with companies and businesses that had environmental impact assessments carried out will know how costly they are. I know of people who were put out of business because of the requirement to produce environmental impact assessments when developing quarries on their lands. The assessments are costly and there are people with huge debts as a result of carrying out developments on their farms in this area.
The interference by An Taisce, which has no responsibility or liability in this area, will be catastrophic for the farming community. It is time for us, as a people with a unique heritage and culture, to stand up to the bureaucrats in Brussels who are imposing the regulations, and deadlines as to when they should be implemented.
With regard to the spreading of slurry, farmers are expected-----
The Deputy should stick to the topic of the debate.
-----to farm by the calendar. This is not practical in Ireland given its weather.
The unavoidable conclusion is that the new regulation is just another bureaucratic stick to browbeat hard-working farmers, who are already suffering from the excessive EU red tape and bureaucracy. There will be a huge cost. The State or European Union should step up to the mark and facilitate farmers by supplying a free environmental impact statement. The regulation will have a devastating effect on the farming community right across the country. If we do not take action, a day will come in which Irish farmers will be as militant as those in France. It is our duty as politicians to take action, and to do so quickly.
I thank the Chairman for allowing me to contribute following a member who knows much more about farming than I do. I live in an urban area but, having come from a rural one, I will confess some knowledge of farming. We have had three adverse judgments against us, so I do not think we have a choice; we have to do it. What we do is important because we are over-reliant on size, which is what the judgment said. Is there any other country in Europe that is over-reliant on size? The Minister of State quoted Northern Ireland and England bringing the area down to 0.2 acres, the same as ourselves. As Deputy Bannon said, are they kicking us and making farmers do something that nobody else in Europe is doing? I would not think so, but I would like to hear if they were.
Enough has been said about permeable paving, but one question has not been asked. Does it apply to first-floor apartment gardens that would have a run-off into areas other than soil? It is not quite clear. The planning regulations affect everybody in the country, not just farmers, so urban dwellers will also be looking at this regulation on permeable paving. This point has to be clarified. The co-operation between the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government is most necessary. A three-pronged approach should be taken by each Department, including the regulations applying to each sphere.
The wetlands regulation concerns a reduction of area to two hectares. If a farmer was draining an area of less than two hectares, he or she would be exempt. If the area contained an underwater stream serving more than two hectares, however, would that make the farmer eligible to apply? The regulation does not make it clear what the area is. It does say the area is two hectares, but the area being served, if larger, could hit us at a later date - particularly, if a stream was connected to another stream up the road which has to be taken into consideration.
Much has been said about the finger-post, but I have one question. Does that refer to pop-up commercial activities that happen around the country every weekend or is there a timescale? Does it have to be a permanent business?
On the cash cow, it would have been helpful if the planning fees were outlined. The Minister of State mentioned that it was €10 per 0.1 hectare, but what additional information is available at the moment?
The threshold for carbon storage facilities is not mentioned, but it is important because I presume that different thresholds would apply to various commercial businesses, farmers and households. Where can we obtain that information?
As was mentioned earlier, it is better to settle problems by mediation before they go to court. Will the Minister of State provide a lo-call mediation and information service for farmers who need such questions answered? It would be a good idea to provide such a service for farmers to whom these planning regulations apply, but not for everybody.
I compliment the Minister of State for the way he has handled the cards he was dealt. As a constituency colleague, and practically a next door neighbour, I am aware of the Minister of State's background. He has done a great deal of work in advocating the rights of rural Ireland since his election to the Dáil back in 1992. He has also written a book on farmers' rights, so I will take his advice in this respect.
Deputy Dooley referred earlier to mapping wetland areas so they will be more easily identified and we can classify areas that will fall under the wetlands category. The big worry is that while these regulations will not apply to areas outside wetlands, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will bring forward statutory instruments to require farmers to notify them if they are making any enhancements or modifications to their land. That will increase the bureaucratic red-tape and administrative costs for farmers. The point was well made that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should appear before the relevant Oireachtas committee. I realise that the deadline is 23 July, but is there any way of extending it, even by some months, so that the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, as well as the agricultural sector generally, would have an opportunity to make suggestions in that regard?
I also welcome the initiative on temporary posters being displayed for only seven days before an event and three days afterwards. It is only right and proper that a fine should be imposed on people if they do not take posters down. When I was a member of a local authority in Westmeath, I proposed that we should ban election posters. Perhaps the Minister of State could take that idea on board.
I agree with the Deputy.
Such posters are a blight on society and costly for candidates also.
I welcome the plan to reduce licence fees for brown finger-post signs. Will anything be done to relax the criteria for businesses to qualify for such signs? Many businesses would gladly have paid the €630 to get their signs up, but the low fee will be no good if they cannot get them erected. Various businesses in our own constituency would gladly pay the additional fee to have these signs erected. I ask the Minister of State to relax that situation. If one makes representations, one will be referred to the NRA, the Department of transport and elsewhere, rather than a decision being taken to allow a person to erect such a sign. Perhaps the Minister of State can provide some guidance on that matter.
Westmeath County Council has proposed that it should be a planning condition for all public buildings to have facilities to harvest rainwater. The Minister of State should examine providing a grant to public buildings that could retrospectively install rainwater harvesting equipment. Water rates are crippling the hospitality sector, so such an idea could work well there. I acknowledge that the VAT rate has been reduced, but hotels and public houses - which use a lot of water - could benefit from a grant to install facilities to use rainwater for showers and urinals. It could be a big boost for struggling businesses.
I am surprised by some of the Minister of State's comments on extending facilities for rainwater harvesting, because it is not exactly a new area that needs to be scientifically evaluated. The benefits of such a scheme being extended to public buildings and residential properties have long been known. It is a shame that half the State's housing stock was developed since the abolition of water charges in the mid-1990s. We therefore missed an important opportunity to implement building regulations at that time in order to enforce rainwater harvesting for residential properties. It does not require a big investigation; simple measures can ensure that this is done in future.
The Minister of State has embarked upon a consultation process and discussions have focused primarily on the farming lobby which seems to have had a good airing. However, has the Minister of State consulted with any other bodies on this process, other than the farming lobby? We have received good information and submissions from groups, including Coast Watch. The latter group has submitted detailed proposals and suggestions on how the situation could be amended. Will the Minister of State take those proposals on board and incorporate them into his forthcoming proposals?
I agree with Deputy Murphy's point on regulations. It is difficult for us to evaluate this process if we have not seen some of the regulations behind the issues we are considering. In that sense we are considering matters in a bit of a vacuum. We are discussing a licensing process being developed in lieu of traditional planning permission. Who will decide and enforce that process, regulating and deciding what is exempt? That is one of the key areas of success. There has been a significant problem with self-regulation in many aspects of our society and I do not have much confidence in it. Will the Minister of State explain that? I must go now but Deputy Murphy will await the answers. I am sorry I cannot stay.
I thank the Minister of State for his very informative presentation. Most points have been covered so I just have two questions. With people who have carried out work without planning permission, will the permission be retrospective and must they apply for planning for works already carried out? I welcome the reduction in finger post signs from €630 to €50 but what are the regulations for large mobile signs on our main roads and roundabouts? Are these legal and paid for? What regulations apply to such signs?
Deputy Murphy has a brief supplementary and I will then revert to the Minister.
There were a number of questions that were not answered completely. I understand it is only the natural heritage areas included up to now that are already designated. Will the Minister consider proposals for additional areas? With regard to signage, the Joe Duffy show on radio has had people on for days complaining about not being able to erect signage, whereas on the other side there is a compliance issue on the follow-up of local authorities. Will we rely on litter wardens for enforcement or will that be done through licensing or planning? If it is a question of being chased around the country for compliance, unfortunately, we may return to a point before we had eradicated much of the littering done by way of signage. I have some concerns in that regard.
With regard to Ramsar designation, is the Minister of State completely satisfied that the designation is in compliance, as my information is that it is not fully compliant? With regard to rainwater harvesting, Kildare County Council has begun to review the development levy, and there may be a positive feature in the levy system for people who harvest rainwater. It might be the mechanism to use or the suggestion could be circulated, as there is a financial benefit in this.
I have been chasing unauthorised developments in Kildare County Council for years, and some have been on the go for several years. It may take a long time to get to a court where somebody is absolutely determined to push ahead. Is the Minister of State satisfied that local authorities will have the resources if additional obligations are to be put on them? They are already in a position where they may not be able to enforce regulations completely against unauthorised developments. That is the position in Kildare, which I use as an example.
Some of the contributions focus on issues that could be dealt with by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. My input relates to wetlands, and as far as I am aware they do not constitute a significant area of land across the country. I know the area referred to by Deputy Bannon, which is subject to significant and ongoing flooding. It would be unlikely that it could be subject to a significant effort in order to drain the wetlands and return them to normal agricultural production.
There is a perception that farmers are being subject to significant additional standards but in fairness, they have reacted very positively, which I mentioned before. Farmers have done significant work, which we should acknowledge as contributing significantly to the protection of the environment. They have worked within existing systems and are already subject to regulation and cross-compliance procedures, which are significant. In the past number of years there has been a significant improvement. Normal field drainage, maintenance and removal of field boundaries are covered by the system to be introduced by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Guidelines will clarify what will be covered and required. Deputies are correct about the possible high cost of environmental impact statements but they should be simple. We should not accept people seeing this as a way to make much money as the environmental impact statement should be very simple and direct for the areas involved. I hope it will not be perceived as imposing a significant additional burden. Designation would be significant as there would be no development in that context.
Senator Cáit Keane mentioned adverse judgments and is correct in that we had little or no choice and must act on such matters. As I mentioned previously, we should avoid judgments. We should not be any greater than other Europeans in that regard. I am reminded of the regulations I am aware of from my own experience. Very often other countries had works carried out and wanted Ireland to become a guinea pig. I would not like to see that happen for the implementation of regulations at the suiting of the European Commission. We are prepared to play our fair share but we will not be pioneers just to suit other people's agendas. We must send a clear message to Europe in that regard.
I know from my agricultural experience that certain countries circumvent some of the regulations imposed, and I have seen that with regard to agricultural products. We will deal with the issues but there are legacy matters to be dealt with in a positive and constructive manner. We should not try to be the best boy or girl in the class, particularly as agriculture is an area gaining significant employment and output for the recovery in the country. Agriculture is the only natural resource we have so the message must go out that we must ensure the worthwhile targets in Harvest 2020 be met in terms of economic activity and advancement. We must achieve those targets, although we can have ecological advancement at the same time. I read that in Deputy Stanley's county, clubs have lost 150 or 160 players since last year, so there is no point having grand schemes without people. I always have great concern for people in that context. All member states must implement the directive. We have particularly sensitive areas of employment which we must look after. There must be a practical aspect in this regard. The two hectare threshold applies to areas where there is an impact.
Deputy Bannon lives three miles away and Deputy Troy lives in my village - I am surrounded by colleagues. I cannot go to sleep at night without one or the other. Both are interested in these issues and I thank them for their contributions.
To reply to Deputy Troy, the guidance will include examples of the wetlands and potential risks involved. It would be difficult to map all areas. If one had a GIS or other mapping system, it would be an excellent idea and would contribute to rationalisation to ensure there would not be an extended burden, but the OPW has the flood areas mapped, which might be a contribution.
I agree with Deputy Murphy that fines should be imposed when signs are left out, but I disagree with her in some respects. Various events such as wedding fairs contribute to employment creation. No advertisement shall exceed 1.2 sq. m and it shall not be exhibited more than 2.5 m above ground level or glued, pasted or otherwise affixed to any structure other than an advertising structure. It shall not be exhibited, or no advertising structure shall be erected for the purpose of exhibiting such advertising, at a distance greater than 15 km from the event, but the event shall not take place at the same location more than three times a year. The full rigours of the law should apply to those persons who leave them up and I would be disappointed if they did. This recognises and acknowledges the difficult economic circumstances in which we find ourselves.
I accept local authorities have lost a huge number of staff, but when such events are advertised, they are on to the organisers like the sting of a bee. The issue is taken up almost contemporaneously with them and signs were taken down by the promoters in one case. That was positive in a way because the law was being applied. That addresses Deputy Murphy's concern about enforcement, an issue she has raised in the Dáil. I hope local authorities will take steps to deal with the issue. Staff have been redeployed to that end.
Deputy McLellan asked about retrospective permission. We do not have scope to deal with the proposed NHAs. Consultations will take place with the National Parks and Wildlife Service to ensure the advice it has received on the definition will be incorporated.
The suggestion of a development levy exemption for rain water tanks is meritorious. We should contact local authorities to consider this as the way forward. I agree with Deputy Daly that the principle, with which no one would dispute, is in place, but, as he said, making this a reality is a problem. In the context of charges, this might be an ideal time to look on this as a positive measure. If I had money, it is one of the initiatives I would like to undertake. It would only take a small amount of money to promote it and I would be delighted to do so.
Unauthorised developments are a bugbear of the Deputy's. Local authorities should take steps to deal with the matter, but where signs have been erected and so on, they have been extremely vigilant, to which some of my colleagues can attest.
What about the Coastwatch proposals?
We will take its views into account in finalising the guidance to be offered. We have to be fair to everybody. A fine balance must be struck in the implementation of the regulations.
That concludes our consideration of the order.
I thank colleagues for their patience, understanding, help and constructive proposals. I hope I will not have to return with my back to the wall again. I thank members for their co-operation.