Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
TAOISEACH LEO VARADKAR has said there are aspects of the proposed Nature Restoration Law (NRL) that “go too far”.
Speaking in the Dáil this afternoon, he said:
“I share concerns people have across rural and urban Ireland about some aspects of it going too far and not fully recognising how we use land in Ireland in particular.”
In December, countries from around the world came to a landmark agreement on nature at the COP15 for biodiversity, promising to protect 30% of the planet and 30% of degraded ecosystems by 2030.
The European Union came to the negotiation table in Montreal with an important piece of proposed legislation in its back pocket: a Nature Restoration Law that would be the first law of its kind to enshrine targets across the bloc for restoring ecosystems, habitats and species on land and at sea.
The law is concerned with all types of ecosystems – grasslands and forests, rivers and lakes, peatlands and agricultural land, and towns and cities too.
It would, for the first time, set legally-binding restoration targets for ecosystems that must cover at least 20% of the EU’s land and sea area by 2030 and all ecosystems that are in need of restoration by 2050.
Much of the public attention given to the law so far has centred around its aims for restoring peatlands, which have been seriously degraded – only 10% of Europe’s peatlands are currently considered to be in good condition.
Last week, The Journal reported that Green MEPs are concerned over the “unprecedented opposition” against the European law.
It now appears there could be opposition within Government with the proposals set to cause conflict between the coalition parties.
When asked by Rural Independent TD Michael Healy-Rae what the Government will do to protect rural people and farmland, Varadkar said in the Dáil today the nature restoration law is only a proposed European law.
“I want to make it very clear that it is a proposal at this stage. We all understand the need to protect nature and restore biodiversity loss to allow nature to regrow but there are aspects of it that go too far in my view, particularly if it comes to taking agricultural land out of use for food production and, indeed, in urban areas, there are issues where it might become harder, for example, to turn a grass pitch into an all-weather pitch.”
Varadkar said there is “a long way to go before this regulation is right”.
Negotiations are still under way, he added, before encouraging people to engage in the Dáil debate on the issue next week.
When asked about the possibility of a rift between the coalition parties over the proposed new law, a Green Party government spokesperson told TheJournal this evening:
“We are currently experiencing a dramatic decline in biodiversity, runaway climate change and widespread pollution of waters and deteriorating air quality.
“A major international study showed today that half the species in the world are undergoing declines in their population sizes. This is also true for Ireland where there are serious concerns for the continued survival of many native species that were once common, including the salmon, puffin and curlew.
“We don’t believe this should be a divisive issue. We’ve had a common approach in the European negotiations. Ministers Ryan, McConalogue and Noonan have worked together in terms of the Irish Government approach.
“No-one will be forced to participate in any schemes but instead, farmers who wish to do so will be paid to play their part in restoring our natural world.”
With reporting by Lauren Boland
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Sentence is still too lenient. 4 times the legal limit, kills one person and paralysis for another.
I listened to the mother of Kate being interviewed on Newstalk and thought she was a lovely, brave woman going through a terrible time. She did not think it would serve any purpose a drunk driver going to prison. She asked that no one get into a car being driven by someone who had been drinking.
We would all be safer if you drink but not drive.
“Out of line with other decided cases” – which clearly must have been too lenient as well! So judges perpetuate their inadequate sentencing because of precedent.
It seems to be the very flawed system on which our entire legal system operates. Basically an original mistake gets extended forever.
This again leaves a huge question mark over the severity of the sentence handed out yesterday to the ex fireman who had consensual sex with a 16 year old and got 7 years in prison. Murdering one person and paralysing another is only four years.
You can’t have consensual sex with a minor. They cannot give consent. This, however, is a disgrace and no deterrent. Judges are totally out of touch with the real world.
If I had too much to drink, killed someone with a weapon and claimed it was an accident? What sentence would I get, If any and the judicial system is a joke in this country.
As I said yesterday completely incompetent Judges…..joke
How the Fcuk is that allowed?
Politicians allow it, they have a bar in their workplace and consume alcohol while working.
They should have doubled his sentence for having the neck to appeal. Outrageous decision.
This country and its judicial system are an absolute joke. What kind of an example does this give. 4 years for what he did. His first sentence was too lenient in my eyes.
An embarrassment
Wonder if I paralysed a judges daughter would I just get the 1 year?
Hold on went from seven to four years. He should of been dragged out and shot.
Can this also set a precedent,for appeal, for that drink drivers sentence last week? On the basis of this, what sentence should have been imposed on the idiot in Donegal. The judiciary in this country is a shambles.
The problem seems to be that there is no central authority issuing guidelines so you have each judge in their own little fiefdom sentencing people according to their own interpretation of the law. We really need minimum sentences and a system where if a judge feels that a particular case warrants a lesser sentence due to mitigating circumstances the case is referred to a higher court.
There should be a mandatory minimum sentence for anyone who kills or maims another person by driving while drunk. Say 12 years and lifetime ban from driving with no chance of appeal, this would act as a good deterrent.
€206877
This is how much the state will save by this appeal. Its in the states interest to grant these appeals. This is why we have laughable sentencing laws. The state is far more interested in money than its citizens. We have seen this again and again. Money trumps life.
http://www.iprt.ie/prison-facts-2
How much will the paralysed women receive for care help?
If only Dexter Morgan was real
Is that judge off his nut? If anything the original sentence was too lenient!
It shows the courts are getting more comfortable with this type of crime hence the low sentence
So they’re trying to extend the sentence in that Donegal case while reducing the sentence in this one? Does our legal system have any clue what it’s doing?
Another nonsense sentence for causing such devestation due to being an idiot behind the wheel driving drunk. These judges are clearly blotto when they hand down these terms.
Who cares what you said.
F*ck off troll.
10 years . End of story
Sentencing in this country especially for drink driving road accidents are a disgrace.
A central tenet of democracy is that the branches of Government must be independent of each other. The executive enacts legislation and the judiciary interprets the wording of a given statute when it is tested by way of using it to prosecute a crime. The judges’ interpretation becomes a precedent for other cases of a similar nature into the future. This is called “common law” and is equally as binding as legislation, and is used throughout the land. Sentencing is limited by a variety of factors: legislation, “mandatory sentencing”, and the concept of “fairness.” This chap’s sentence has to be proportionate to those who previously did similar and with a similar outcome. The Victim Impact Statement serves no function other than to give the victims a voice (make them “feel better”.)
Excuse the language but that’s a FN joke. No justice here at all.
have your say