Michael Fitzmaurice: EPA, new bill and the turf-cutting squeeze

First of all, thanks for coming in. Just to clarify something, John. You stated that the bill that came into the Dáil from Darragh O'Brien, supported by the government, has now included a whole complex which makes it more complicated compared with the High Court ruling where it was a section where you could hydrologically and ecologically show that it had no other effect. It's done already on science, because we actually done it in the turf cutting side of it, and you've said now that the bill they're after bringing in is using the whole complex which is going to make your case harder to win. Is that right? Right. So let's be clear on that. So that's the bill that came in a few months ago. Second of all, in the line of you've looked at Westmead and I actually have looked at Blomford, I've done a bit of research myself. What you are saying to me or to us is that from 50 to 30 hectares, you're required to get planning. Under 30 hectares, you may or may not need it. Is that correct? Yes. Even though the EPA here, it's like the Bible, what I'm reading there from them, that everything over 10 hectares really needs it if you look at that. So what you do is you screen it out, isn't that it? Yes. And if it screens out, you look for consent. Yes. Consent has been put in by how many? Well, we've only won recently because the rest are waiting for to see how that goes. And the one that's gone in is how long in? It's been in for two years. And have they got any results? No. So they're left in limbo land. Even though that's the process you're supposed to go through once it screens out. Is that fair to say? So it would be very disingenuous to say or for the EU to be saying that someone is illegal because they've gone through the process because they've screened out, which is actually the environmental side of it done. But these here and the EU have made a decision that they're illegally working already, even though it's screened out. Yes, there's five other producers that have screenings done. But as Kevin said, if the first one is granted, because if that's not granted, no one will ever be granted. And that's why it's what the other people are afraid of. Am I right in saying that the reason that you're being pushed for planning and that no one caught themselves, you went on the 50 over 50 hectares. Is there many over 50 hectares operate now? No. One, two? No, no, none. Okay. So the EPA actually shouldn't be even looking into this because it's all under 50 hectares. Of course. But if you look at the last EPA, the last committee here, they have reduced. They're now effectively saying there's nothing over 50. So their new approach is to go after the county councils to force them to implement. Is that their job? Is that their job? Yeah. Is it? Well, I don't know. I think it is actually. I'm not sure. Right. And the other part that I want to ask you is, all these reports that you have to get, my understanding that it will minimally cost you 100,000. Wouldn't that be fair to say? If you have to do an EIA, appropriate assessment and all of that, and know your permeability and your upwelling and all that, if you have to go to them. If you're doing it, you're certainly 50,000 plus. Yeah. And at the moment, my understanding was that before the government brought in this bill, a case in Longford was won because the EPA brought a person to court and they lost that case. And the EPA must coincide with the government and brought in the new legislation now to say that the whole complex would have to be included, going by what I'm reading. Yeah, definitely. I think as well it was the RP case with the Court of Appeal. And the Court of Appeal ruled that the interpretation of the EPA was wrong. So I think that's the reason, combined with the Longford case that they got... The Longford case that the EPA brought was actually, was it 27 or 14 hectares? They said it was over 50. Yeah, I know that. But now it's down to 27. When it was determined... When it tried to include other areas. Okay. And in your opinion, I know that you said there that this is regulatory and all of that in other countries. What does other countries do? Well, first of all, every other country, they've only one licensing system. We have two. We seem to be the only country in Europe that has two systems, licensing and planning, if you're over 50 hectares. Every other country in Europe have only either license or planning. Say foreign Lithuania, sorry, from Estonia, you get planning and you're allowed harvest as much. The harvest every year is less than the amount of sphagnum that's growing on the bogs in Estonia. So if we look at what Ireland, and it's never forgotten about, but we grow almost 3 million cubic meters of sphagnum on our existing bogs every year. So it's a massive amount, 3 million cubic meters of sphagnum. My assessment of it, that there needs to be, wherever has been basically milled at the moment for millpeat, whatever is done now is done in the line that should be exempted. Because in my opinion, and I'm calling it straight here, the game that's going on here with EPA councils and this new government regulation is that you'll apply for the consent or you'll go for planning. Someone will object to you because they're trying to block it, as you've said already, out there. You will be brought to a board panel, you'll be brought to a review or judicial review, and it will be loaded against the person that owns the bit of ground. And that's why, in my opinion, there's only one of those in at the moment because they're watching what's going to happen to that person. Because the funding you will need on what's going on in this country is scandalous in the line of the way that people that's out working 7,000 jobs is being treated.