Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Nov 2022

Vol. 290 No. 7

Water Environment (Abstractions and Associated Impoundments) Bill 2022: Report and Final Stages

Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Burke, back to the House.

It is great to see the Minister of State in the Chamber. I will not discuss this at great length. Suffice to say, I undertook, following engagement with the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, to bring nine amendments to the House. I made it very clear that none of them were mine. I supported the principle of stepping up to the plate and articulating on behalf of the IFA. All of the amendments were in order, discussed, pressed and rejected. That is the simple fact of the matter. I want to put that on record because it is important. I engaged with a number of people who contacted me before, during and after the process. It is important I make that point.

The IFA outlined its concerns regarding the aspects of the proposed legislation, which would give Irish Water the ability to infringe on the property rights of the Irish farmers. I responded to those concerns accordingly. As I said, I tabled amendments, which were from the IFA, not me. It was important that they were appropriate and I consider them to be so. I received other amendments from other groups and having reflected and obtained advice on them, they may have been ruled out of order or I could not quite make a case for them. I tried, in very simple language, to set out the rationale for each of those amendments.

Many politicians pride themselves on their connections with the IFA and their performance – or lack of it – in the Seanad. The lack of engagement in this House was an eye-opener. That is, after all, the prerogative of the Members and I respect that. I want to be clear about that. However, I was somewhat taken aback by the lack of engagement from Senators from rural communities, particularly those who had sought mandates to represent the nominating bodies on the agricultural panel. That came as a surprise. It is not a criticism but it surprised me.

Today, we have no amendments to this legislation. We have no Government amendments and none from Senators. No amendments were ruled out of order, which is an important point to make. I have always said that it is important that we represent groups that are officially constituted and properly run. IFA representatives are regular contributors at and attendees of the agriculture committee. I am also on the housing committee. I know the recommendations there are somewhat at odds with some of the arguments or rationale for the case I am making. However, policy is made in the Houses. We can have pre-legislative scrutiny and the committee did a good job with that and there was much engagement on it. I am on both committees. One could say I am somewhat conflicted, but I am not. I was making a case for a representative body. I have this opportunity to speak, of course, and that is why I will use it. I respect that is the decision of the House. That is what we need to say.

As I said, I remain deeply concerned about two aspects of this Bill, namely, the lack of a clear protocol for compensation and full guidance for fair mediation and legal remedy for farmers, landowners, and the issue of associated costs. That is one of my principal remaining concerns with this Bill. I refer to the ability of Irish Water to infringe and oppress the property rights of Irish farmers. Section 61 grants Irish Water the power to control, interfere or affect the levels of any water reservoir, be it a river, a pond or an aquifer, if it is relevant to the public extraction operation.

The Bill is now due to go to the Dáil and the Seanad will, no doubt, assent to it proceeding to Dáil Éireann. There will be another opportunity for consideration and debate in that House, which has a different set-up and dynamic. The Dáil has a greater cross-section of rural Deputies and they will have the opportunity to tease out the issues and do what they will through the parliamentary process. I hope they will take on some of my concerns and the rationale I set out on behalf of the IFA in the amendments. I will engage strongly with them. I have already indicated my concerns to some rural Deputies and I passed on much of the correspondence and advice I have received on this matter. It is critically important that the IFA concerns are further teased out. That is a matter for the other House and I wish Deputies well in their deliberations.

I appeal to the Government to work constructively, as I try to do, with all sides of the Houses to address some of the genuine concerns of Irish farmers in relation to this legislation. There is an opportunity to tease out some of the issues. I know the Minister of State will be open to considering each and every amendment as it comes. I cannot pre-empt what Deputies will decide to do, what amendments they decide to take in the House or what contributions they will make. However, I believe I did a reasonable and fair job articulating on the nine amendments drafted by the IFA. They were not accepted and I respect and accept that.

I thank the Minister of State and his officials for giving me assistance in teasing out some of the issues and Members on all sides for facilitating the debate.

I fully respect Senator Boyhan's right to stand up and say what he said. However, I am quite surprised and astounded by it. I could not let this debate continue without putting the record straight. Like most of my rural Fianna Fáil colleagues, I have at least six engagements per year with the IFA. I assure the House that at not stage did the IFA representatives express to me any concern about this. If they did, I would have addressed the matter. I find it strange that the IFA would approach one Senator and would not lobby the rest of us, particularly those of us from rural Ireland.

Senator Boyhan is passionate about agriculture and horticulture, as I am. I am a rural Senator and Oireachtas person. However, I wish to make it clear that I, like many of my colleagues from every side of the House, engage with the IFA at least six times a year and this matter has not been brought to my attention. It may be an issue in some parts of the country and I am not denying that. However, it has not been brought to my attention. Most members of the agricultural community would be rather taken aback by the Senator's comment that we would not deal with issues of concern to the IFA. If the IFA has a major issue with this, I would be delighted to hear from it tonight. I want to hear from the IFA tonight. I did not get the communication that Senator Boyhan got. That is fair enough. The IFA does not have to send me all the documentation.

The IFA has a considerable input to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, under the chairmanship of Deputy Jackie Cahill. The Chairman and the members of the committee give the IFA a lot of time to debate and bring issues forward. I have engaged in those debates. I was elected on the agricultural panel. I was not appointed to that Oireachtas committee but the Chairman allows me to engage once the members, of which Senator Boyhan is one, have made their contributions. It is not that I am in conflict with the Senator but I want to put the record straight from our side of the House. I am sure other people will have things to say. We constantly engage with the IFA. I would like to think I know most of the problems and difficulties that the IFA faces. This matter was not brought to my attention by the IFA. If it had been, I would have spoken about it today.

As I said previously, I find myself completely disagreeing with Senator Boyhan on all of his amendments. As I stated during a previous debate, because my party is in government, there are times when I have to admit that we have had to compromise on some issues and it is difficult. My Government colleagues have had to compromise on other issues and we went into government understanding that would be the case. However, I would never table an amendment in which I did not believe. That seems to be, with respect, what Senator Boyhan is suggesting.

The amendment I proposed on Committee Stage was ruled out of order. Other Members also had amendments ruled out of order. It is for that reason we did not table amendments on Report Stage because those same amendments would have been ruled out of order again. As a result of that, I asked the Committee on Parliamentary Privileges and Oversight to look at the transparency around what is and is not ruled out of order. I will continue to follow up on that.

I will reiterate a couple of points and I know the Minister of State is aware of our views in respect of them. The daily rate of 25 cu. m seems to be too high. It is not in line with Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, where 10 cu. m applies. That needs to be looked at, if not now then during the drafting of regulations. I ask the Minister of State to consider the matter in the Dáil. My colleague, Deputy Steven Matthews, will bring forward an amendment in that regard. It would not cost the State anything. In fact, it would save the State money because we could contact people and ask them not to abstract at times of drought conditions. I am fully behind the amendment I proposed. I would like the Minister of State and the Department to examine how it can be incorporated.

I join with Senator Eugene Murphy and concur with his comments. I was surprised at the comments made by Senator Boyhan. I am open to any other engagement. I have not received any detail on this matter from the IFA.

I thank Senators for their contributions. I acknowledge this legislation as it ensures our compliance with the water framework directive. It is essential legislation. The thresholds set out will capture more than 99% of the volume of water to be abstracted in the State.

In respect of our engagement with the IFA and the debate with all Members, we can come to an agreement. I do not doubt that Members right across government regularly meet with representatives of the IFA, as I do myself. I acknowledge that the IFA is an important actor in the landscape. We engage with its representatives. As Senator Boyhan said, one might on one day be acting on behalf of An Taisce and on the next on behalf of the IFA. A good skill set is required to try to engage with competing parties.

I thank the Minister of State for that acknowledgement.

We would acknowledge that.

Question put and agreed to.

When is proposed to take the next Stage?

Question, "That the Bill do now pass", put and declared carried.
Top
Share