Apologies have been received from Deputy Malcolm Byrne.

The purpose of our meeting this afternoon is to have an engagement with a number of stakeholders on the topic of illegal peat extraction. This meeting is being split into two separate sessions. The first is with the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and the Irish Peatland Conservation Council. Our second will be an engagement with Westmeath and Offaly county councils.

I welcome to our meeting the following witnesses from the EPA: Dr. Tom Ryan, director at the office of environmental enforcement; Ms Pamela McDonnell, programme manager; Dr. Mick Henry, senior inspector at the EPA; and Mr. Kealan Reynolds, senior inspector. From the Irish Peatland Conservation Council, I welcome Ms Nuala Madigan, the chief executive officer. I remind all those in attendance to ensure that their mobile phones are on silent mode or switched off.

Before I invite the witnesses to deliver their opening statements, I will advise them of the following in relation to parliamentary privilege. Witnesses and members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Therefore, if your statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity you will be directed to discontinue your remarks and it is imperative that you comply with any such direction.

The format of the meeting is that I will invite witnesses to make an opening statement of a maximum duration of five minutes. Once those statements have been delivered, I will call on members of the committee to put their questions in the order in which they indicate to me, with members first and non-members after. The committee operates a rota system which provides each member with an initial five minutes to engage with our witnesses. It is important to note that the five minutes is for both questions and answers. Therefore, it is essential for members to put their questions succinctly and for witnesses to be succinct in their responses.

Please note that the duration of the session is limited to one hour and therefore, the times must be strictly adhered to. I ask everybody to be focused in their contributions. I now call on each organisation to deliver their opening statement. First is Dr. Tom Ryan from the Environmental Protection Agency and then Ms Nuala Madigan from the Irish Peatland Conservation Council.

I thank the Chair. Apart from our opening statement, we furnished the committee with two other documents: a 2025 report on large-scale, illegal peat extraction and another document that contains maps of the peatlands which are the subject of our investigation. Noting the Chair's comment about time, I will abridge my opening statement and signpost as I go along.

One of the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory functions under section 52 of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 is the "licensing, regulation and control of activities for the purposes of environmental protection". An activity is defined in the Act as "any process, development or operation specified in the First Schedule" to the Act. Paragraph 1.4 of the First Schedule provides that one such activity is "The extraction of peat in the course of business which involves an area exceeding 50 hectares". Section 82 of the Act provides that "A person shall not carry on an activity ... unless a licence [from the EPA] ... is in force in relation to the activity". Contravention of a provision of the Act is an offence as set out in section 8 of the Act. Large-scale peat extraction also requires planning permission and in the case of an area exceeding 50 ha, an application for planning must be made to the relevant planning authority in advance of making an application to the EPA for a licence.

The next section of the statement sets out the situation in relation to Bord na Móna. I will summarise the regulatory position. Planning permission is required for peat extraction on an area greater than 10 ha; an EPA licence is required for peat extraction on an area greater than 50 ha; and an environmental impact assessment, EIA, is required for peat extraction on an area greater than 30 ha, but may also be required for sub-30 ha areas if there are likely to be significant effects on the environment. There is no area threshold for appropriate assessment.

The EPA has deployed significant resources to carry out 216 enforcement inspections of peat activities between 2021 and 2025. Based on evidence gathered, the EPA can take prosecutions summarily in the District Court or on indictment, in the Circuit Court with the DPP. Section 99H of the Act provides the EPA with a power to apply for injunctive remedies to the Circuit Court or the High Court. The EPA has taken legal actions at District Court, Circuit Court and High Court level against peat extraction operations on areas greater than 50 ha. These actions have resulted in the cessation of illegal peat extractions on several peatlands in recent years and a number of actions remain live before the courts.

The next section of the statement provides particulars of the outcome of the recent judgment in the Court of Appeal in EPA v. Harte Peat. As a consequence of this judgment, the EPA has recommended to the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment that section 99H of the Act be amended to bring it in line with the broader wording of section 160 of the planning Act 2000, which permits enforcement of activity that has been, is being or is likely to be carried out. The Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2025, which is currently before the Oireachtas, provides an opportunity to make such an amendment. This would strengthen the EPA’s regulatory powers in enforcing the law with respect to the larger, illegal peat extraction operations.

It is now firmly established in law that peat extraction activities on peatland areas of greater than 10 ha require planning permission from the relevant local planning authority, and most such activities are likely to engage EU law obligations under the EIA and habitats directives. The associated consents and environmental assessments fall clearly within the jurisdiction of the local planning authorities, but by virtue of section 63 of the 1992 Act, the EPA has a role in the regulatory oversight of the environmental performance of local authorities. It is under this provision that the EPA has been engaging with the local authorities with regard to their enforcement of illegal peat extraction. Over the past number of years, the EPA has gathered intelligence on as many as 38 peatlands across seven local authorities where there is evidence of ongoing or recent large-scale peat extraction. The local authorities concerned are in counties Offaly, Kildare, Tipperary, Westmeath, Roscommon, Longford and Sligo. The EPA shared all this intelligence, including site-specific location co-ordinates and aerial photography, with the local authorities for their consideration in their enforcement activities. The EPA escalated its oversight by issuing section 63(1) notices to the relevant local authorities, requiring the provision of information with regard to their enforcement approach and activities.

The EPA assessed the responses from the local authorities as inadequate and escalated the matter by issuing each of the seven local authorities with section 63(5) draft directions to prepare county-wide and site-specific enforcement plans using the intelligence that the EPA shared with them as a starting point. Only one of the local authorities - Longford County Council - has responded positively to this draft direction by putting in place a well-reasoned, county-wide enforcement plan and has commenced some enforcement actions. Local authorities need to step up to meet their legal obligations as regulatory authorities, prioritise their resources and use the ample enforcement powers at their disposal to bring these illegal activities to an end and protect our environment.

It is important to be clear that EPA enforcement actions are not concerned with households exercising their lawful turbary rights to cut turf on non-protected bogs for their own consumption. Rather, the enforcement actions address the sophisticated, unauthorised and illegal industrial-scale extraction of peat by operators for profit. These operators are in flagrant violation of environmental law and are contributing to an export trade of an estimated 300,000 tonnes of peat in recent years, with a value of up to €40 million annually. The environmental impacts of large-scale, unauthorised peat extraction operating outside of any regulatory controls are catastrophic for the local environment in that they result in the destruction of vital ecosystems for biodiversity and the loss of important carbon sinks. This flies in the face of our efforts on climate change and causes harm to an irreplaceable cultural amenity and scientific resource. In the absence of regulation, operators are destroying the environment for profit and just walking away, leaving damaged landscapes of artificial lakes and exposed marl behind. These activities are destroying our precious natural environments and this needs to stop.

The Irish Peatland Conservation Council, IPCC, is a national, non-governmental environmental charity with a mission to conserve a representative sample of Irish peatlands for people to enjoy today and in the future. Our work is guided by peatland conservation action plans. One area of our work is peatland advocacy, which includes stakeholder engagement, responding to local and national public consultations, scoping and planning documents and supporting members of the public who require help to raise concerns about peatland developments in their local communities with the relevant local and national agencies.

Through the IPCC's education programmes, the council shares with members of the public the many ecosystem services of peatlands including but not limited to a habitat for biodiversity; their value as a carbon store; their role in water quality and flood protection; recreation and well-being; a land bank for agriculture; and their economic value.

Today it is not only the IPCC that recognises the importance of peatland ecosystem services. In 2015, Ireland published a national peatland strategy with a vision that aims to provide a long-term framework within which all of the peatlands within the State can be managed responsibly in order to optimise their soil, environment and economic contribution to the well-being of this and future generations. This strategy also shares the ecosystem services of peatlands and divides these services into sustainable and non-sustainable.

By non-sustainable we mean that such uses of the bog cause disturbances which are irreversible on any timescale relevant to society. The strategy further provides examples of these non-sustainable ecosystem services, which includes horticultural peat.

In late 2020, following a High Court decision in 2019 which determined that large-scale peat extraction required planning permission and licensing, the Government established the working group on the use of peat moss in the horticulture industry. Through a collaborative approach, this working group brought together representatives from the horticulture industry, local and national agencies and non-governmental organisations, including the Irish Peatland Conservation Council. Knowing the value of peatland ecosystem services and knowing that the use of peat in horticulture is non-sustainable, the group aimed to find and support the transition to viable alternatives to peat for the horticulture industry. The chairman’s final report from this working group highlighted the value of the horticulture industry to Ireland’s economy and found that, within the commercial horticulture sector, approximately 60% of the value of Irish horticulture is dependent on peat as a growth medium.

Ireland’s peatlands have taken thousands of years to form and the extraction of peat is finite. It is the opinion of the Irish Peatland Conservation Council that no industry today should be so heavily reliant on a finite resource such as peat. If Ireland is to protect jobs and the value of the horticulture industry to Ireland’s economy, the Irish Peatland Conservation Council believes a transition from peat is essential. The chairman’s report also provided a timeline of actions and responsibilities for this transition. The Government's response at the time made no commitment to follow the timeline presented for the transition from peat. Instead, the response from the Government was to prepare a working paper setting out a series of actions, including the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine commissioning an expert on planning to provide free advice to those wishing to achieve regulatory compliance for extraction of horticultural peat.

The findings of the Environmental Protection Agency report in June of this year highlighted the extent of illegal peat extraction across seven counties in the midlands of Ireland. The Irish Peatland Conservation Council finds this completely unacceptable. It is damaging to Ireland’s efforts to end Ireland’s biodiversity and climate emergency and represents a failure to manage Ireland’s peatlands responsibly as set out in Ireland’s peatland strategy. While the regulation of commercial peat extraction exceeding 50 ha is one function of the work of the EPA, it also has a role in supervising local authorities' performance of their statutory duties to protect the environment under section 63 of the Environmental Protection Agency Act.

The Irish Peatland Conservation Council supports members of the public who require help to raise with the relevant authority concerns about peatland developments in their local communities. The council is concerned by the following response:

To investigate your complaint of alleged unauthorised development, we require: Full Address of alleged unauthorised development - to be provided by complainant. Details of owner, developer or occupier - to be provided by complainant.

The Irish Peatland Conservation Council does not believe that community members with concerns for a peatland development in their local community should ever have to provide such detail when local authorities have planning departments that can access information on planning applications granted. Indeed, it is our understanding that they have an obligation to do so.

It is not just the peat within a peatland that has value. As a country we have put in place strategies and legal requirements working to ensure the sustainable management of peatland habitat and even gone as far as to offer free expert advice to the horticulture industry to ensure regulatory compliance. The findings of the Environmental Protection Agency report on the illegal extraction of peat highlight how Ireland’s fragile peatland habitats are being drained and mined, resulting in the loss of peatland sustainable ecosystem services and affecting biodiversity, climate and water. The fact that 60% of the value of the horticulture industry is reliant on the non-sustainable use of peat as a growth medium risks jobs and the industry's contribution to Ireland’s economy. It is the Irish Peatland Conservation Council's opinion that the illegal extraction of peat should not be accepted in this country. The horticulture sector must transition from its dependency on peat if it is to support its own workers and industry. Our local and national agencies with responsibility for the oversight of peat extraction compliance must work together to ensure the immediate halt of peat extraction by all non-compliant operations.

Our Government must put in place all necessary measures, which may include establishing a peatland unit similar to that established within the National Parks and Wildlife Service to bring together the various local and national State agencies with the responsibility to monitor peat extraction operations, ensure compliance with the regulatory systems and work towards the transition from peat within the horticulture industry for the sake of Ireland’s communities, climate, biodiversity and economy. The Irish Peatland Conservation Council thanks the committee for the invitation to present today.

I thank the witnesses for their presentations which were very interesting. They really hit home. My first question is for Ms Madigan. She mentioned that 60% of the horticultural sector is reliant on peat extraction. What are the alternatives available to the sector at the moment? We have had the brown bin for many years now. Is that an alternative?

We believe that transition from peat is necessary. Monaghan Mushrooms, for example, is producing really firm and white mushrooms in a non-peat environment. It is possible to do this. It might take time to actually get there but the horticulture industry must transition. It is working on a finite resource and its extraction is having a negative impact on climate and biodiversity. A lot of research is going on in Teagasc at the moment. One of the recommendations that came out of the peat use in horticulture working group was investment in research into peat alternatives to remove peat from the industry. We have seen with Monaghan Mushrooms that it is possible. The industry can expand the use of alternatives and it needs to happen.

Does Ms Madigan see the contents of the brown bins being an alternative?

Yes, absolutely. Brown bin contents are going into a compost and that should be accessible to members of the public who are growing flowers and so on. The brown bin material can be composted-----

It can be composted at home and it is beautiful.

Yes, and there are peat-free alternatives on the market today.

Ms Madigan made reference to the establishment of a peatland unit to monitor peat extraction operations. What kind of powers would she envisage such a unit having? We do not want to be adding to the workload of the EPA. Is there a different body to cut down on the bureaucracy around that? What would the council like us to do?

I used that as an example because it was used in the context of a very different scenario of the spate of turf cutting in special areas of conservation. The Irish Peatland Conservation Council feels the system is not working as it is and we need the relevant agencies to come together. In terms of the powers, we have those in place but can they be enhanced? Can our Government enhance those to make sure that we move away from non-compliance within the industry?

My next question is for the EPA. I thank its representatives for their presentation as well. Do they know how many peatland sites are under 50 ha as opposed to over 50 ha?

Our intelligence leads us to believe that there are less than half a dozen sites that are greater than 50 ha.

Okay, so the majority of the sites are less than 50 ha. In terms of priorities for the EPA, instead of leaving the large number of smaller sites to under-resourced local authorities, should some other body focus on them? The local authorities do have a lot of work in this area. I am disappointed to see that Kildare County Council was not the best. We are used to our council being very good at making sure they are abiding by legislation. Do the witnesses think there is another body that would be better at ensuring compliance?

When it comes to areas greater than 50 ha, it is very much within the jurisdiction of the EPA. That is what we have been pursuing.

Does Dr. Ryan think local authorities are sufficiently resourced to do that?

They are telling us they are not but they have a responsibility to regulate in this area. It is really a matter for the local authorities to make sure that they are resourced to carry out those regulatory duties.

Do you know of any cases where peatland licences have been revoked due to malpractice? Does the EPA have a figure for that?

No peat licences have been revoked. The only entity holding peat licences at the moment is Bord na Móna. Those licences are still operative and are being used at the moment for rehabilitation purposes. The reason we highlight Bord na Móna is because it illustrates the power of regulation. The conditions are still operative and Bord na Móna is using those conditions to rehabilitate the land, whereas these other operators are extracting peat and walking away, leaving lakes, exposed marl and so on, in a very irresponsible way.

In Dr. Ryan's opening statement he said that the responses from all the county councils, save for Longford County Council, were inadequate. Does he believe the proposed regional enforcement authority will resolve a lot of the issues he raised or does he believe the EPA requires more powers?

We welcome the commencement of that aspect of the planning Act that would see the setting up of the regional enforcement authority. We have been invited to participate in a group around that and we will support it. It has great potential. There are good examples where regional enforcement has worked, for example, the waste enforcement regional lead authorities, WERLA, which is a kind of shared services model. While we are supportive of that, this issue cannot wait.

Looking at the actual sites themselves, as Deputy Cronin mentioned, there are four in Kildare, which I am disappointed to see. However, is there any evidence or correlation between the landowner being the extractor of the illegal peat?

It is very much the case that it is not always the landowner that is the operator. Our evidence is that operators can move from site to site and definitely may not be the landowner

In those circumstances, are there legal agreements or frameworks between the operators and landowners, or is it done on a contractually illegal basis?

That may be the case but, again, our role really is to ensure that those operating on greater than 50 ha have a licence, so we are concerned with the operators rather than the landowners. What relationship or what arrangements they have place is not really a matter for us.

Help me understand how that is not a matter for the EPA. I appreciate that the EPA is looking at those who do not have a licence. However, if we want to tackle and get to the bottom of these issues, surely the EPA should be looking at the correlations and connections, particularly the legal connections, between these operators and the landowners?

Again, it is the local authority's responsibility to do that. It is the operator that needs a licence from the EPA.

To clarify, when it comes to enforcement it is the operator that bears the responsibility. However, the Deputy's question about that relationship is an interesting one.

Maybe that is something we need to look at as legislators because the landowners have responsibilities in allowing the land they have to be used for illegal purposes. I thought the EPA would have had a role there but I understand what the witnesses are saying. The county councils will be before us later on and I will pose the same question. Moving on in a similar vein to milled peat, large sod and wet peat extraction and the industries these are used in, particularly horticulture and mushroom growing, one provider was mentioned earlier. Is the EPA aware of evidence of Irish companies in the mushroom growing or horticulture sectors availing of illegally extracted peat?

That is something we do not enforce. What we enforce is the actual extraction itself. Once it leaves that area, it is not something we have any powers or remit to follow.

Is Dr. Ryan essentially saying that the only powers the EPA has at the moment are around the permissibility of the physical activity of removing peat from the ground-----

Correct.

-----and after that, basically it is not up to the agency?

It is not that we do not have an interest in where it goes but we do not have any enforcement role in relation to that.

Who does have the enforcement role?

When we talk about enforcement, what would we be enforcing?

Essentially, the illegal sale; it is an illegal act. What I am getting at here - and I completely understand Dr. Ryan's point that it is not the EPA's responsibility and maybe that is something we should look at in terms of increasing its responsibilities and powers - is that if we are going to try to address the issue, surely we have to address the final outcome. The final outcome is that this peat is being sold illegally. When we have evidence of where it is being sold and who is selling and buying it, surely we can match the dots together and tackle it? This would help a case in court, in particular. With a bit of a legal background behind me, I think that evidence would certainly be permissible and admissible in court and would certainly help the EPA's case. I know my time is up.

We really appreciate that. There are a finite number of sites where this material is being extracted. They can be controlled and it can be stopped at source.

Deputy Cronin mentioned the issue of resources earlier. Are the witnesses happy that the EPA has enough resources? They mentioned all the work it is carrying out. Are they happy the EPA has enough resources or does it need more with regard to perhaps aerial tracking and extra technologies?

I know it is a trite answer but we never have enough resources.

What extra resources does the EPA need?

I think we have sufficient resources for our work now. We were maybe a little bit stretched a few years ago because there were probably more operators and we were taking more cases. Most of the operations have now reduced to below 50 ha, which brings them within the jurisdiction of the local authorities. Our main role is that oversight role on local authorities to try to make sure they are fulfilling their obligations in relation to enforcement. We are okay on resources in this area.

There was recent media commentary that there were no operations over 50 ha. Does the EPA dispute this? The witnesses say that there are five or six.

We are happy to clarify that.

The difficulty from a legal point of view is proving it but there are five or six operations currently being investigated by us.

Are there any extra legislative measures the Government can take? Should there be any amendments introduced into the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill or any other measures taken in order to bring enforcement in an easier way.

We have identified one particular issue in relation to the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and that is around strengthening the EPA's section 99H injunctive relief power. It is just to bring it into line with the planning acts so that there is that forward and backward-looking aspect. That came out in the Environmental Protection Agency v. Harte Peat Limited judgment. We would welcome a strengthening there. I know the Department is in agreement with us on that.

On the other side, we mentioned that the Department of housing has commenced an aspect of the planning Act that would provide for regional enforcement, probably on a shared service type model. We encourage that and are supportive of that proposal.

I have a question on a local issue in County Kerry. Ms Madigan referred to biodiversity and the water damage caused by illegal extractions. In the Brosna, Knocknagoshel and Lyre areas of east Kerry there is a lot of forestry. I have been told that a lot of the peat or soil from the forestry is going into the area's water because of the overuse of vertical drainage. I spoke to someone at the weekend who told me that when he was growing up in the Lyracrumpane area, he would wait a few days for the rivers to fill up after heavy rain. It literally takes a couple of hours now because the water comes down in surges and is not being soaked up by the bogs. Do the witnesses accept that this is the case? I am being told that over the past 30 years, brown trout and salmon fishing has been wiped out in the Smearlagh, Clydagh and Owveg rivers, which are tributaries of the Feale. Do the witnesses accept that forestry is a contributory factor to that? If so, what measures can be taken?

I do not have any-----

They may not know about those particular tributaries, but, in general?

I am afraid I would not be able to answer that. We would have to look into that specifically.

Has the EPA come across soil spillage from peatland areas that have been used as forestry, which has had a negative effect on rivers?

Under the water framework directive, peatlands have been identified as a significant pressure on water quality. Those peatlands are not just the ones we talked about in our report; they include high-ground peatlands and ones used for other purposes. These have been identified as a significant pressure on water quality.

Are there enough measures to mandate horizontal drainage, as opposed to vertical, or setback areas of forestry?

I think we are stepping into an area-----

I know it is slightly tangential.

-----that is slightly outside of our enforcement work. We would have to come back to the Deputy on those specifics.

I thank our witnesses. I can probably speak a bit more freely now, but I set up that horticultural working group when I was Minister of State. It was chaired by Dr. Prasad whose background was in composting. To say the report that came back to me was frustrating would be an understatement. We established it with a view to the sector and the stakeholders coming back to set a pathway out of the use of horticultural peat and to look at the alternatives. A recommendation came forward around looking at the alternatives but I had wanted the report to come back with those alternatives. There are plenty out there. FitzGerald Nurseries, in my own part of the country, have been peat free for a long time and have warned about this for 20 years. It is almost like Groundhog Day, in many ways, that we are still discussing it. I feel a real sense of frustration that the local authorities in question have not stepped up to what is required of them.

My first question is for Ms Madigan. Looking at the work the IPCC is doing, there is an opportunity for the horticultural sector to move into a much more sustainable approach. Does she think there is a willingness, from the IPCC's engagement with the horticultural sector in Ireland, in relation to that? The question about tackling it at source, where peat is being sold in supermarkets or garden centres, was asked. There is no labelling system. It is my understanding this peat is being exported and then reimported, being mixed in other countries and coming back in other products. What does Ms Madigan see as the solution? This is really just industrial mining on a grand scale and is highly profitable, yet there seems to be no willingness to address it.

We took part in the peat use in horticulture group. We were also very disappointed with the outcomes of that. Where we are today is the horticultural industry has to look at its own jobs and industry because peat is a finite resource and it cannot continue on this route. It has to change. Monaghan Mushrooms is a really positive example of a company within the industry. Mushrooms and soft fruits are one of the biggest users of peat in that industry. It is a real positive story to have a company like that, which is in the industry, doing that transition without necessarily having been obliged to do it. That is a really good example of where there potentially is willingness. I hope that would repeat throughout the industry.

The Senator mentioned tackling it at source. The Irish Peatland Conservation Council feels that one area that needs to change, and can change, is for the amateur gardener. The amateur gardener, and you and I, can walk into retail units around Ireland and buy bags of peat moss compost. These might just be to simply grow our spring daffodils and crocuses. Today, there is no need to mine and drain a peatland habitat that this country has acknowledged has so many benefits for our water quality, climate and biodiversity. We should not be using that to grow ornamental plants in our garden. Tackling it is about looking at how we can remove it from the amateur gardener. That is one step to take the pressure off.

The Senator mentioned exports. According to the EPA report, between 2022 and 2024, that is, for the three years combined, more than 1 million tonnes of peat was exported from this country. I do not know if this will answer the Senator's question but my question is, if it is such an important resource in this country to support an industry, why are we allowing so much to be removed in exports? To bring it back to earlier comments on it, do we need to look at who is watching where it goes once it leaves the bog? Why is it that companies can potentially buy illegally extracted peat?

It is incredible.

It is shocking and it needs to change.

I have one quick question for Dr. Ryan. Could a regional unit be established without legislation, perhaps through a service level agreement between the relevant local authorities? The good actor here seems to be Longford County Council. Perhaps one local authority could take on the responsibility on behalf of the others. That unit could be housed within a single local authority without a legislative requirement to do so.

I do not want to cut across any plans the Department of housing has. One thing we are quite satisfied about is that local authorities, as it stands, have the appropriate powers to intervene and enforce here. The Harte Peat v. EPA judgment in the Court of Appeal was very clear that section 160 is a very strong tool to bring these issues and regularise matters.

It has been a very interesting conversation so far. I will come back to the point Dr. Ryan just mentioned. Local authorities have the powers they need. It is then safe to say that, for whatever reason - I will say this because he will not - a number of local authorities have decided to turn a blind eye to illegal activities in their counties and are not enforcing their own rules. The next point is who can make the local authorities do that and do their job. To be fair to the EPA, it has highlighted this and it has gone into the media. That report was very strong in stating that this work was not being done by the local authorities and they still have not stepped up to the mark.

There is an issue with local authorities refusing to do their work. Is there an opportunity for the EPA, under section 63 of the current Act, for it to force those local authorities to do their job? That section is quite broad. It allows the EPA to request a report, which it has done already. That section then states, essentially, that if what the local authorities come back to the EPA with is not appropriate, and it is not satisfied they have carried out the direction it asked them to, it can either do it itself or arrange for that direction to be carried out and charge the local authorities for that work. Is there an opportunity? Is it broad enough that if local authorities are not doing their enforcement work, the EPA can do it on their behalf? It can then apply whatever costs or resourcing to the local authorities. The only way to get local authorities to do this is for there to be a monetary or enforcement action taken against them. Section 63 could potentially enable that.

Where we are with section 63 is we have issued draft directions. As the Deputy said, it is quite an involved section. Those draft directions are for consideration by local authorities. The draft directions contain what would become a direction to develop countywide and site-specific enforcement plans, with all of the information we have given them. The next step is that we would issue those directions formally and they become legally binding. Local authorities are regulatory bodies of the State. It is their role and responsibility to get on with this.

It is substantially a planning issue and it is for them to enforce.

I agree 100%. However, in the absence of local authorities enforcing it, there is a regulatory responsibility on the EPA to ensure they are doing their job. When did the EPA issue those draft directions?

That was done during 2024 and 2025.

They were issued last year and only one council has come back.

There has been correspondence but only one has come back with an actual countywide plan.

At what stage will the EPA issue the councils with a legally binding direction that they are to enforce this?

We are considering next steps. There are a couple of pieces in train at the moment, as outlined in my opening statement. For example, the Office of the Planning Regulator is carrying out an investigation into whether there is any systemic issue. As we have discussed, the Department of housing has commenced the part of the new planning regime that would set up a regional authority. If that were to happen quickly, we would be very supportive of it. There are some positive developments that are moving in the right direction.

I absolutely agree and I welcome that the EPA is looking at a legally binding direction. However, the local authorities have had a year to act and this has been going on a lot longer than that. If a rule is being broken, whoever is doing it must be held accountable. If a State agency like a local authority is not doing its work, it needs to be held accountable. If someone were to build a house without planning permission, the relevant council would be on that person like a tonne of bricks. This is much more problematic and, therefore, the councils need to be forced to do their job. I ask that the EPA look at bringing forward those enforcement powers a lot more quickly. It needs to be done. We cannot let years go by without this issue being resolved. Setting up a regional authority would be absolutely brilliant but how long will that take? I ask that the EPA act quickly.

I remind the Deputy we are tight on time as there is a second session.

This is illegal activity. As such, has the EPA ever considered reporting it to An Garda Síochána?

As the regulatory authority, we have been dealing with the local authorities. To clarify, is the Deputy referring to the extraction itself?

Yes. It is illegal, criminal activity. The EPA has all the evidence it is happening.

There is a regulator there to enforce the regulations. Our role is with regard to the local authorities in those circumstances.

However, as an entity that is-----

We have not reported it.

The EPA is aware of illegal activity and has all the evidence for it. Reporting it is something the agency might consider.

Earlier this morning, I met with representatives of a company called Garryhinch Wood Exotic Mushrooms, based in County Offaly, which is using beechwood sawdust to grow mushrooms. Even though we have nine locations, we are advancing a technology as well. It is important to make that point.

My first question is on the EPA's engagement with the councils, which the witnesses have described as inadequate. Did any local authority not respond?

No, they all responded.

They are all taking this into consideration. Do they understand the magnitude and scale of the problem?

Yes, they do.

If all of this extraction were to cease overnight, how many jobs does Dr. Ryan calculate would be lost in the region?

I cannot answer that.

There are nine locations in Offaly alone. Does the EPA have any calculations as to what the extraction levels are per site? Are there some areas in which there is a greater level of extraction than in others?

Offaly is covered on page 5 of the document we presented to the committee. There is good summary information there.

Regarding engagement with each of the county councils, we appreciate that they have the power but not the resources to deal with this. Is there any way the individuals who put that report together could assist local authorities with the next steps in preparing for enforcement?

The EPA is here to advise; that is part of our role under section 63 of the 1992 Act. We have met with all the local authorities and they are aware of the issue.

Which local authority would Dr. Ryan say is the most problematic overall in terms of the EPA's engagement with it and its experience of how the problem is being dealt with locally?

I would not rank them. There are seven local authorities involved and one has come back with-----

If we could come up with a solution tomorrow, where does Dr. Ryan see the biggest impact in terms of there being the biggest problem?

Each of these peatlands is valuable in its own right. I would not do a ranking like that.

With the sites of less than 50 ha, was there perhaps a little bit of change in terms of land registration to bring any of them under the threshold of 50 ha?

We see various situations, some on unregistered land and more on land that is not owned by the operator. Each situation is different in its own right.

What is the largest pocket of land where several owners or operators are accumulated together?

There are a number of what we call bog complexes in different counties. Like Dr. Ryan, I am not going to get into ranking which is the biggest.

It is fair to ask which is the largest in terms of the cumulative situation. If the threshold is 50 ha and if there are multiple operators in one complex, surely that question arises.

If the witnesses were to hit the problem by range of size, starting with the largest, the question is which complex they would look to first.

Part of the answer is that not all of the operations are active at any one time. It is a very transient kind of activity. If we want to have the biggest impact, we need to identify the ones operating currently or in the cutting season and start there.

Are there bog complexes or locations right now that have not operated in recent years?

Over the period of our investigation, all of them have evidence of large-scale operation. That does not mean they are operating every year. It is the role of the local authorities-----

This is what I am trying to get to in terms of the impact. Do we have a situation wherein some operators are really pushing this to the limit, operating every year and harvesting continuously, while with others, there might be a sense of traceability such that there was activity in recent years but it has gone dormant?

Clearly, the biggest impact is from the ones operating on greater than 50 ha. They are the ones that need-----

Where are they?

We are pursuing them all the time.

Where are they?

They are across a number of the counties we highlighted. They are under investigation and we are considering the next steps in relation to them. However, again, it falls back to the local authorities to deal with them.

There are a number of them we ceased. There are a number where we failed to prove the operation was over 50 ha; maybe they were 49 ha. More complicated than that, the threshold was that we had to establish they were greater than 50 ha when we took the legal action. This is where the issue of project splitting comes in, as was highlighted in the EPA v. Harte Peat Limited judgment. The big operators are the ones we have been chasing. That does not mean that, cumulatively, the others are not doing as much damage. It is very difficult to rank them in the way the Deputy is pressing me to rank them.

May I make one final comment, a Chathaoirligh?

You may do so very quickly, Deputy.

I acknowledge that the EPA recognises the people who are using peat extraction for home heating and their right to do so. The last thing I want is for the committee to come across as painting everyone with the one brush in terms of criminality. That is an important point to emphasise.

I emphasise that we are not pursuing people who are exercising their turbary rights to cut turf.

That is in the EPA's report.

I wanted to put it on the record.

Absolutely.

It is very interesting that the EPA's powers in this regard are quite constrained unless section 63 of the Act, which seems to be crucial, is amended.

I have limited time now, but perhaps we could have a further sense of the steps following direction. When do we move to the point of replacement activity and billing? Time is crucial. We heard about a year off or a year on. It is not like other areas of environmental damage whereby repairs or rewetting can happen. We know that the creation of peat has taken millennia. What is lost in one or two years is significant, especially given the scale.

The point about the number of areas that have been reduced below 50 ha was touched on. Dr. Ryan mentioned that a number of areas have been reduced to less than 50 ha. How many sites have been put out of the immediate reach of the EPA and into the local authority realm? There is also the question of the complexes. We will see what comes, but the idea that an operation would have to be active on a particular day is ludicrous.

The other piece relates to the special areas of conservation, SACs, and national heritage. We know there is massive under-designation in Ireland. If more areas were being designated in that way, would it give the EPA any further reach or remit? Would they still fall under the remit of local authorities? Would a strengthening and widening of those designations, as has been long promised, help? Those are my initial questions.

We discussed what the next steps would be from our point of view. They would be regulatory actions. They would not necessarily solve the problem immediately. It is not that we would not follow that process. We would then be into court cases and the time constraints involved. This needs to stop now. Local authorities are emanations of the State. They should be fulfilling their legal obligations and enforcing these requirements now without the EPA having to take them to court.

The Senator asked about SACs and protections.

In fairness, none of these sites are on SACs. Some are proximate to them.

We have a lack of special areas of conservation. We are under-designated and that has been identified as an issue by Europe. If those sites were under special areas of conservation and more natural heritage areas, NHAs, were designated, would that strengthen regulatory powers?

Fundamentally, that is a policy matter but it would bring those areas under the remit of the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

I asked about a number reducing below the 50 ha threshold. Has there been a significant reduction in the numbers that are above 50 ha and an increase in those below 50 ha?

I do not want to comment too much on that because a number of cases are before the courts where we are seeing this sort of project splitting, but it has happened.

Going back to local authorities, there appears to be a switch. The EPA is targeting the operators but we heard from Ms Madigan that at local authority level, people are being asked to identify the owners, but there might be 20 or 50 owners, so they cannot be identified. It sounds like that becomes a hiding point. Is there scope for a shift whereby the local authorities should be focusing on the operators? Everybody wants to protect people's turbary rights for domestic use, but those turbary rights are being accumulated and used by operators for commercial purposes. Perhaps Ms Madigan will also comment on the question relating to owners. That seems to be a matter that needs to be looked at. The alternative is targeting an operator who is behaving in certain ways.

Further upstream, the point around the use of peat was well made. If you have operators who are effectively selling on illegally extracted peat to Irish companies, and, crucially, for export, that 1.5 million tonnes that was exported in 2020 and 2021, that seems to be where the crunch should be. If you are selling peat, you should be required to proactively prove its provenance. I know that scope may not fall within Dr. Ryan's remit. Is it a discussion the EPA is having with those who can follow through on that?

We have been primarily focused on the sites and on getting boots on the ground. That is where our power and authority lie. There is certainly considerable scope for awareness campaigns for retailers and outlets to ensure that the products they are getting are sourced in a sustainable manner.

The reason is not that it would nice or on a wish list but that it would be illegal not to. The reason I am concerned is those 1.5 million tonnes of exports. I worry that the plan for some of these industries is to start importing from other countries and to import illegally harvested peat from elsewhere rather than changing the model of the industry. That contributes cumulatively.

Will Ms Madigan comment on the owner issue? Will she also comment on the overall question? We know there is a huge benefit to keeping peat in the ground, rewetting and all of that. There is also a huge danger. Damaged peat is an emitter rather than a preserver. Perhaps Ms Madigan would comment on the fact that there is both a major plus that we should be chasing and a real minus that we must avoid. We need a double-pronged approach.

We know so much about peatlands thanks to research and work down through the years that we know what we can do for these sites. For those sites of over 50 ha, if extraction were to be halted, we know how to manage them. We have techniques, such as cell bunding, to rewet and manage the water table. There is sphagnum moss transfer. We know how to mitigate against peat ending up in our waterways. That is really important. For theses operators to be within the licensing system, my understanding and that of the Irish Peatland Conservation Council is that of operators are in compliance, they have an obligation at the end to rehabilitate these sites. That is really important.

In terms of-----

Just very quickly on that point, is it correct that what Ms Madigan outlined would be much-----

Senator, we are very tight on time.

-----quicker in terms of carbon reduction than, for example, forestry where you might wait 20 years to get a reduction through carbon storage?

What we know about peatlands is that they are the largest store of carbon, but only under the correct conditions. The water table has to be managed. We know that peatlands are really important for mitigating against climate change. It is about managing the water table, and that needs to happen.

What about the owners issue?

I thank the witnesses for coming in to explain the job they are doing. I am sorry that we have policymakers in government who took the decision to set Irishmen and Irishwomen on other Irishmen and Irishwomen to stop them from cutting turf. I believe that all of us, in every part of the word, live under the one sky. We are importing briquettes from Lithuania. I hear that we are importing turf from Germany. I cannot see the point. It is very hurtful for old people who traditionally burned turf in their fires. If they are buying turf from the bigger fellows to keep their fires going and to keep themselves warm, I can understand it. Every day since Bord na Móna closed, the cost of electricity has risen. There is no control by the Government. It is making no attempt and there is no regulator. I must say, because it is a fact, that if we put out every light and fire in the country, and got off the island altogether, it would only make 0.013% difference in the worldwide context. That is why I am worried and upset about this.

I can trace back my family cutting turf in our own bog for our own fire to 1800. I do not believe that those people did any harm. I do not believe that we are doing any harm in cutting the bit of turf for ourselves now. When I look at what is going on, I wonder if everything else in the country is in tip-top shape and in order such that all we have to do is to follow people who are cutting turf, whatever scale it is on.

It is being used by people who basically want to keep themselves warm. I regret the assertion that was made that Ireland is underdesignated. If you talk to any farmer who is trying to eke a living out of his bit of land, they are overdesignated. We see what happened with the hen harrier. When the designation took place, the farmers were promised they would get compensation. There is no word about the compensation now and their lands are not worth a pittance of what they were worth before they were designated. Therefore, I am certainly not looking for any more designations. Do the witnesses consider that what they are being asked to do is fair in light of the other fuels that are coming in from other countries to heat people the same way as we would be doing ourselves?

Just to be absolutely clear, we are not talking about turf cutting for fuel consumption here at all. None of this is about turf cutting for fuel.

Sorry for interrupting. Would I be right in saying that some of the turf that is being cut by the bigger contractors is being bought by people who want to burn it in their own fires here in Ireland?

That is a different issue. As I understand it, that is illegal as well and is something the local authorities enforce.

The EPA would not really know because Dr. Ryan has already said it has not gone down that chain.

These are large-scale operations. We are talking about huge operations with large machinery on large tracts of land digging out enormous amounts of peat, most of it going for export and being used in the horticulture industry across Europe, Asia and South Africa. That is what we are talking about, not the householder who is lawfully cutting turf and exercising their lawful turbary rights. That is not what is at issue here at all.

All right, we will just change it a small bit so. If we are importing briquettes and turf, why can we not export it? We are all under the one sky. It is very clear to me that the sun shines in some parts of the world at all times. I cannot understand or make sense of it. I am not blaming the witnesses. I am blaming the policymakers for insisting that they do this work. I know the witnesses have other valuable work they could be doing. We have a lot of local authorities around the country that are not doing our water any favours. I believe, just as well, that the farmers are being wrongly targeted most of the time.

We have to watch the clock because there is a second session too. Are there any final comments on that in terms of import and export? Again, it is not really the remit of the EPA.

Absolutely not. If the market requires this kind of product, our only role here is that it is provided in a lawful manner.

Okay. I have a couple of questions. Going back to this project splitting, the witnesses may correct me if I am wrong but what it sounds like is that operators know the EPA is getting involved and they are taking their chances with the local authorities rather than with the EPA and licensing. That is really what it looks like. Is that correct?

As long as the Cathaoirleach does not follow up and ask me which specific sites because-----

I will not ask that, but is that the direction of travel?

Yes, that is happening.

Ms Madigan mentioned 60% of the Irish horticulture industry relying on peat as a growing medium. That is enormous. Is that the peat that we are talking about? As Deputy Cronin said, what is the real alternative that this industry can move to?

The 60% comes out of the peat and horticulture working group report. I have put the reference in the opening statement as to where that comes from. Whether that peat is going in the industry, I cannot comment on that. I think it was mentioned earlier on in the committee that we are not really tracing, when the peat is extracted, where it is actually ending up. Is it going for export? Is it ending up in a retail unit in Ireland? Is it ending up in a horticulture growing facility? We do not know, so I will not have any comments on that.

Going back to the EPA on this issue of traceability, it strikes me that you either have to have planning permission or a licence from the EPA, or both, depending on the size. That could surely travel with the peat and any peat that is to be purchased would have to have it. That is the traceability. It is there. Surely we are halfway there already in terms of the information that would need to be checked to make sure it is legitimate.

At the moment, there are only nine licences from the EPA and they are for Bord na Móna, which has stopped extracting. As far as we are aware, there are no planning permissions for any of this activity.

There is no planning for any of it. However, if you had a legitimate planning permission, that would be the hook in terms of what Deputy Ó Cearúil was talking about on the other side of the transaction, saying it is legal. That is the way it could be checked if is legal.

It would be one of those things that would be checked if due diligence was being done on the provenance of this material.

Regarding the issues with the local authorities and the challenges with getting them running or moving on this, is the Department and the Minister aware? Has the EPA made the Department and the Minister aware of these challenges?

We discuss this with the Department on an ongoing basis.

The Department is aware.

We have interacted with the Department of housing as well.

We will leave it at that because we have a second session. I thank all the witnesses for coming into the first session and for making their presentations. With their agreement, we will be publishing their opening statements on the website. Agreed. We will now suspend for two minutes to change over.

This is the second of two sessions on the topic of illegal peat extraction. We have just heard from the EPA and the IPCC. The purpose of this second session is to engage with representatives of Westmeath County Council and Offaly County Council. I welcome to our meeting from Westmeath County Council Mr. Barry Kehoe, chief executive; and Mr. Cathaldus Hartin, senior planner; and from Offaly County Council Ms Anna Marie Delaney, chief executive; and Mr. Andrew Murray, director of services. I again remind everyone to turn their phones to silent or off.

Before I invite witnesses to give opening statements, I advise them of the following about parliamentary privilege. Witnesses and members are reminded of the long-standing practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

The way the meeting will run is that I will invite witnesses to make an opening statement of a maximum of five minutes. When it has been delivered, I will call on members, in the order in which they indicate to me, to put their questions. We aim to finish in an hour so I ask everyone to please try to stick to times and focus on their contributions. Ms Anna Marie Delaney, CEO, will deliver a joint statement on behalf of Offaly and Westmeath county councils.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and committee members for the invitation. I am the chief executive of Offaly County Council. I am joined by Mr. Barry Kehoe, chief executive of Westmeath County Council, Mr. Andrew Murray, director of services in Offaly County Council and Mr. Cathaldus Hartin, senior planner in Westmeath County Council. We welcome this opportunity to address the important issue of unauthorised peat extraction and update the committee on the significant progress on developing a co-ordinated national response with the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage.

On the scale of the challenge, the EPA has identified 38 large-scale unauthorised peat extraction sites across seven local authority areas. However, the Department's 2013 peatland survey identified approximately 126 sites where potential industrial scale peat extraction was occurring, indicating that the true scale of the enforcement challenge extends well beyond the current list. These sites present unprecedented complexity for planning enforcement. They involve highly fragmented ownership structures. One site in Offaly has 70 registered owners, while sites in Roscommon involve 40 owners across 37 separate plots. In many instances, registered landowners have denied involvement in extraction activities, making identification of actual operators extremely difficult without specialist investigative resources.

The enforcement challenge extends beyond peat extraction. The European Commission has also initiated proceedings regarding 18 quarry sites across nine local authority areas, with some overlap between the affected counties. Local authorities have encountered fundamental barriers to enforcement that lie outside individual local authority control. The legislative framework governing peat extraction changed approximately ten times between 1990 and 2019. Multiple enforcement cases have been stalled when operators successfully claimed reliance on exempted development provisions, requiring authorities to prove that bogs were not drained prior to 2001 or that extraction exceeds domestic scale.

The Harte Peat litigation, which commenced in 2013 and concluded only in 2024, illustrates the protracted timeframes and evolving legal precedents involved. The risk of new legal challenges on grounds relating to the EIA and habitats directives remains substantial and would require extremely complex expert evidence not available at individual local authority level. The financial implications are considerable for each local authority. Legal costs in these cases have reached seven figures, with additional exposure to third-party costs and compensation claims. These risks cannot be justified at individual authority level, particularly given current demands on local government resources for housing, infrastructure and other essential services.

This proposal is looking towards a national solution and we are pleased to report significant progress on this issue. The local government sector has worked closely with the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage to develop and agree terms of reference for a planning enforcement national steering group covering both peatlands and quarries. This represents a fundamental shift in approach. The agreed framework envisages the establishment of a regional enforcement authority under section 356 of the Planning and Development Act 2024, which will be designated by ministerial order. This authority will have the specialist expertise, resources and legal backing necessary to address these complex enforcement cases effectively.

The key elements of the agreed approach include an appropriately skilled and resourced regional enforcement authority, with expertise in planning and environmental law, technical assessment, site investigation, complex litigation management and programme management; adequate funding for all enforcement proceedings, including specialist legal representation, environmental consultancy, expert witnesses and site investigations; comprehensive financial protection for participating local authorities and the State; co-ordinated legal and technical strategies across all sites, ensuring consistent application of precedents and standards; and a transparent governance structure with quarterly meetings and working groups to address specific enforcement aspects. The immediate focus is on the 38 peat extraction sites and 18 quarry sites that are subject to EU infringement proceedings. However, the framework provides for additional sites to be added through a triage process and, importantly, develops a sustainable model for addressing complex enforcement cases into the future. This collaborative approach ensures that enforcement action is properly resourced, expertly managed and supported by appropriate State backing, addressing the insurmountable challenges that individual local authorities have faced when acting in isolation.

We emphasise unequivocally that local authorities are committed to stopping unauthorised peat extraction and addressing unauthorised quarry operations. We share fully in the national commitment to environmental protection and compliance with EU law. The establishment of the regional enforcement authority represents the most effective pathway to achieving these objectives. It provides the co-ordinated national response with appropriate State backing that the scale and complexity of this challenge demands. The local government sector is fully committed to supporting this new structure and providing local knowledge, site information, administrative support and active participation in co-ordinated enforcement strategies.

The agreed terms of reference represent a significant milestone. They acknowledge the systemic barriers that have prevented effective enforcement to date and establish a properly resourced mechanism to overcome them. This is not about local authorities stepping back from their responsibilities; it is about ensuring that enforcement action has the specialist expertise, financial backing and legal support necessary to succeed. This approach will deliver the effective enforcement that Ireland's environmental commitments require and the European Commission expects.

I thank committee members for their attention. We are happy to take any questions they may have.

We will move to questions. It is five minutes per speaker and the first speaker is Deputy Ahern.

I thank the witnesses for coming today. I have a few questions about the opening statement. Ms Delaney mentioned the unprecedented complexity for planning enforcement and talked about a site in Offaly having 70 registered owners. Will she please explain the ownership structures? Are these small family plots? What is the difficulty? How is it structured?

I am also interested in the Harte Peat litigation. I gather there were different bits to it and one injunction the council had sought was struck down by the Court of Appeal, but there were other issues and I would be interested in hearing a little more about that.

I will let my colleague respond on the Harte Peat case. On the plots, in Offaly County Council in 2013, we had three examples of industrial peat sites where there were 59, 30 and 19 registered owners respectively.

To add further complexity, sections of bogs can also be unregistered, potentially occupied without the owner's consent, and further operators and companies may be difficult to trace. They can also be across administrative areas. There are therefore significant complexities with some of the cases. That leads to significant legal expertise required to try to deal with these cases, so they become very prohibitive in terms of the financial risk to the local authority.

I will ask my colleague to talk about the Harte Peat case.

The Harte Peat litigation was undertaken by the EPA rather than Westmeath County Council, but I know it was extremely complex because of the changes in environmental and planning law over the period during which the extraction of peat at those sites was undertaken. The evidence that was required to prove whatever the EPA was trying to prove was really difficult to administer, to develop and to bring to the court, so the case became very complex. Whenever we take on any of these cases, those same difficulties arise because the nature of the activity is that it is sporadic in a lot of the cases we are speaking of, it occurs only occasionally and the gathering of sufficient evidence in those cases is really difficult. As I said, and as we say in the opening statement, the changes in the law in recent years have made it extremely complex at both domestic and EU level.

The witnesses are talking about the national solution, and this planning enforcement national steering group seems like a welcome development. They agreed terms of reference for this group recently. When do they envisage it getting up and running and starting its work? I understand the basis for it, and it appears to make sense to pool resources in this way, so I am just wondering what the plan of action is.

We have agreed it at a certain level within the local government sector and with the Department in recent weeks. What we need to do now is bring it back through the structures of the CCMA and have it formally signed off. The direction of travel is that this regional enforcement authority would be set up under the planning Act that was passed in 2024. However, there is very limited information available to us on how the regional enforcement authority might work, apart from what is in the Act, so we are awaiting detail on the exact operation of that authority from the Department. We will work through that at steering group level and, hopefully, reach agreement on it with the Department and get it up and running. That is the direction of travel.

Does Mr. Kehoe have any indicative timeline at all for this?

It is difficult for us to give a timeline because it is not in our hands, but we are working with the Department continuously on it.

In the interim, will there be any ongoing enforcement? I ask for the reasons the witnesses have outlined, such as the difficulty of bringing home cases and so on. Will there be ongoing enforcement while this is being set up? It seems like it could be a bit of a process between now and then.

We are engaged in planning enforcement activities all the time at local authority level. We prioritise the enforcement workload we have and deal first with the more important cases, particularly the cases that have the potential to have a significant environmental impact. My senior planner and his team operate in that way, that is how we operate, and we will continue to do that. If there are significant issues that might have an environmental impact and that require immediate action, we will take it in that case. We continue to provide that enforcement service with the resources we have.

Understood.

Mr. Kehoe understands the concern, though. The EPA says that 300,000 tonnes are being exported a year on average. The longer it takes for this agency to get up and running, the more that will happen until it gets stopped. I am sorry to interrupt.

I call Senator Higgins.

To add to that point from the Chair, every year is a significant loss. In fact, we know that in previous years when a shift in policy was signalled, 1 million tonnes within one 18-month period was exported, and that was because there was likely to be enforcement. The danger of having a slowly coming new enforcement mechanism is that there will be a ramping up in illegal activity in that interim period, which is why current enforcement is so crucial.

On that, I want to drill into one issue. Ms Delaney mentioned the multiple owners. Is the focus on enforcement solely the owners versus the operators? When the EPA is in enforcement, it looks at operators and their activities and engages with that, but then when it comes down to local level, it seems to be about the owners. In that context, the peatland council told us about the concern that people who raise concerns get this response:

To investigate your complaint of alleged unauthorised development, we require: [the] Full Address of [the] alleged unauthorised development ... [the] Details of [the] owner, developer or occupier - to be provided by [the] complainant

A member of the public who is concerned and tries to raise the issue is somehow told they need to give 40, 70 or 20 addresses of owners before the local authority will actually investigate the issue. I wonder about that as an obstacle to getting action on this. First, the witnesses are the ones who have the planning access and so forth and should be able to access the information. Surely the activity should be the signal for action for a member of the public rather than asking them to have information that is very difficult for them to get as a standard practice in every local authority. Second, why is the focus for the witnesses solely on the owner? Operators, it seems, would be an easier target. It is also easier to track when operators are selling the peat that has been extracted. Would that not shift the burden of proof? The witnesses have told us individual owners deny their involvement, whereas the point is that the thing has happened, so the burden of proof should be whether it has happened legally. That is something operators could be asked for at local authority level, surely.

I will take two of those points. The first is that every year lost represents more peat being lost. We get that, but it is really important that when we do take these cases, we get them right. If we get them wrong, the operations will persist indefinitely. That is very important, and that is why we are putting all our eggs in the basket of this regional enforcement authority to get it right and to have all the resources it needs to get it done right.

The second issue relates to the owners and occupiers. The planning law specifically states that we have to identify all of the owners and the occupiers, the occupiers being the operators and the owners being the owners. Referring back to an earlier question, as regards those owners, it could be like a cake with all the slices. There could be loads of people who had turbary rights, and now an operator has come in and, with or without agreement of those turbary owners, is operating on the peat. It is hugely complicated, and it was mentioned in the-----

Is there a piece within the planning laws then that could also be adjusted to allow local authorities to engage with operators that seem to be operating illegally rather than going through ownership?

It would require changes to the planning law. I would not be able to comment any further on that.

I ask the witnesses to continue on the point about requiring members of the public to provide that ownership information.

In our case we have access to landdirect.ie and we can find that out ourselves. The problem is that when we go landdirect.ie, we will probably find gaps, and when we get to court those gaps become apparent. We have the wherewithal to do the same search that some local authorities might ask members of the public to do, but the resources are there for us to check landdirect.ie.

We have in the local authorities standard forms on which people can report unauthorised development and we do seek as much information as possible from the person making the complaint. It does not mean that if they do not give us all that information we do not investigate. We do, but we seek to get as much information at the outset as possible. Then we carry out an investigation based on the information we get. The member of the public does not need to give us all the owners - we will carry out our own investigation - but if they could give us as much information as possible, that is always helpful. That is, I think, the point that that person was making.

It does not seem to be the tone of communications we were given, but that could be looked at.

I am just looking at the number of sites in this and wondering whether I am thinking of this too simplistically.

There are nine sites for Offaly while there are eight for Westmeath. How many of those have planning permission? How many in Offaly have planning permission?

None.

I presume it is the same for Westmeath.

Let us get an answer.

We can provide a bit more detail but it seems that none of them have actual planning permission. Some of them would have declarations that they were exempted from planning permission through historic extraction of peat activity under various enactments.

There are eight so five or six would not have. I know Mr. Kehoe spoke about how complex this is and how the council needs the environmental and legal resources to bring a case to court on this. Is it not pretty binary? Someone either has planning permission for his or her activity or he or she does not. When someone builds a house without planning permission, it is very binary as to whether he or she has the authority to do that. Is it not the same if someone is extracting and does not have planning permission? We do not need environmental assessments and all that. It is a case of "yea" or "nay". The person either has permission or does not have permission. Is that not the case?

Unfortunately, not. If somebody builds a house, it is obviously unauthorised development. If it is a house and performs as a house and somebody lives in it, it is a house. It is a pretty straightforward enforcement case so we would have no difficulty taking enforcement action against that. Unfortunately, it is not as straightforward when it comes to peat extraction because the activity may be one that does not require planning permission. It may not be development that requires planning permission if it is on such a scale or has been carried on at the same intensity approximately since before the planning Acts were brought into force in 1963 or if there were aspects of the activity that might render it such that it does not require planning permission. What we have to do if we are bringing an enforcement case against somebody is be satisfied that the development that has taken place or is taking place is unauthorised development under the planning Acts. There is a burden of proof on us because it is a quasi-criminal prosecution to have all that evidence in place, have it assessed, go through our legal advisers and make sure we have crossed every t and dotted every i before we take the case.

Can Mr. Kehoe and Mr. Murray tell me how many of the sites in Westmeath and Offaly the council has done that for?

We have carried out a certain amount of investigation on all of them and have furnished information to the EPA on our enforcement activities on all of them.

What about Offaly?

It would be the same for Offaly.

Is it the case that the councils believe they do not have sufficient information? The EPA appeared before us earlier on and essentially said it was disappointed in the responses. I do not think either council has provided the reports requested by the EPA. It is very disappointing that the councils are not doing their job. Do the councils believe there might not be enough information on this?

It is a combination of a number of things. It involves the information piece, the complexity of the case, the number of landowners and the various legalities and technical requirements we need to fulfil. We all take our statutory planning enforcement role very seriously. We have to fulfil that role in a way that is legally sound with adequate resources and not bring any undue financial hardship on the local authority because of unsound or unproven cases that could be taken. We would look at what we have. Industrial peat extraction cases typically involve multiple landowners and the overlapping legal jurisdictions I mentioned earlier. Protracted legal proceedings have been mentioned relating to the Harte Peat case. These cases demand specialist expertise and significant financial resources, but the resources are not there. We have been involved in this for a long number of years and have always asked for a national combined solution. We are getting to that, which is why terms of reference are positive and we are looking at that possible regional enforcement authority.

Has either council ever brought an enforcement action regarding an extraction site under 50 ha?

Under the planning Act, we have a particular process we need to go through - the Deputy will have to forgive me if she is aware of this - of serving warning letters; awaiting a response and, if we are not satisfied with the response, issuing an enforcement notice; and, if the notice is not complied with, considering a prosecution or injunction. We have commenced enforcement actions with warning letters and enforcement notices on many of the sites but we have not felt that we are in a position with the information and evidence we have and the legal advice we are getting to go to the next stage without significant further investigation and gathering of evidence that is beyond our means as a single local authority. That is why we are focused, as Ms Delaney has said, on a national office that would be properly resourced and have access to the necessary legal expertise that would be able to gather the evidence that is needed in what is a really complex legal and physical environment with multiple landowners and sporadic activity that only takes place for a short period each year and is interspersed with domestic-scale extraction as well as commercial extraction. It is in the realm of those complexities that it has been difficult for us to take cases to court. We have a duty to prioritise enforcement across our local authority areas and the application of our resources where we can have the maximum impact in terms of unauthorised development of various types. As well as that, our planning resources are limited and we have to apply them to other priorities such as housing and infrastructure. That is the kind of environment in which we operate.

I will put the same direct question to the officials from Offaly County Council. Has it injuncted or prosecuted any of the operations?

In two of the cases investigated by the EPA, we have taken it to enforcement notice stage but, similar to Westmeath, we felt that we did not have the wherewithal to bring them to the next stage, which is court orders. We are pursuing a couple of more recent sites that are outside the EPA's investigation. We are pursuing those at the moment.

Mr. Kehoe mentioned that there has not been any guidance from the Department in terms of how a regional enforcement authority might be established. I put this question to the EPA separately. Could it be established instantly under a service level agreement between the constituent local authorities, with one local authority taking a lead? Could the resources be put into that local authority? It has been done for other projects such as public lighting. Is this something that could be done? As Tom Ryan said in the previous session, this is an issue that cannot wait. As other members have said, every day this goes on, the more problems deepen and the more of our precious peatlands are lost.

That can certainly be considered. There is a process for developing shared services at national level for local authorities. We have a process under the CCMA to deal with establishing shared services for local authorities. If the steering group agrees that this is the way to go, we will propose to bring that through that process as quickly as possible.

In terms of immediate action in very high-risk sites, if we, the public or the EPA were to establish that something is of the scale and necessity to take immediate action, the section 160 route is open to the EPA. It has the expertise and the resources in this area.

That is open to the EPA to use in these circumstances; it is not restricted to local authorities. That is an avenue for immediate action while a regional authority is being established.

The EPA is very clear that this is the responsibility of the local authorities. We have large-scale extraction here, involving heavy equipment and machinery and large vehicles for transportation, that seems to be taking place in plain sight. Are there powers to seize machinery? Can gardaí be involved?

The relationship between local authorities and the EPA is quite complex. In the context of some of the sites in respect of which information has been circulated to us under EPA notices, there are arguments on both sides as to whether these operations are above or below the 50 ha. For example, one half of a parcel of land would have clearly been prepared for commercial peat extraction, while the other side may have been drained and could be part of wetting or preparation for that. The problem is that when we go to court, we have to establish jurisdiction as to whether it is below the 50 ha or above. This is also an issue in the context of legal complexity the EPA is giving it. That is why one authority with the relevant legal and technical expertise needs to be established to look at this from a systematic perspective in the context enforcement. That authority should be able to take the test cases in order to test the law and apply any learnings in respect of the remainder of the sites. It is not a viable option for local authorities to each take an individual route.

We use all the powers available to us. They are limited under the planning Acts. This is an area of legislation - we were speaking earlier about appropriateness in this regard - that probably needs to be rationalised. If you are going to set up a regional authority, the legislation needs to be rationalised in order that the powers will be more streamlined and straight forward when it comes to taking prosecutions.

Members are constantly exercised by the erosion of local authorities' powers or the loss of their powers. My concern in respect of this relates to putting it out to a national authority and taking away some of the functions of local authorities, particularly in view of the significant role they have in this area.

We are always concerned about that. Obviously, we want to maximise our involvement at local level. We also recognise that this is a challenge we cannot deal with alone. The Senator mentioned the prospect of seizing machinery or whatever. We would only be in a position to take drastic action like that where we were 100% satisfied that whatever was going on was unauthorised. The difficulty is getting to a point where we can say that, particularly in the context of the evidence that needs to be gathered and the legal barriers we need to cross. That poses a significant challenge.

In the context of our opening statement and our engagement with the Department, we recognise that the risks and costs relating to acting individually are just too high for local authorities. The demands on our resources would be too much for us to carry. That is why we think the only way to deal with this is through a national body - whatever shape that might take - that would be resourced by the State. The State, rather than individual local authorities, would also carry the risk in this regard.

I appreciate that.

As regards local authorities ceding power, it is important to remember that the regional authority would be a shared service. That would be very important, because the problem with the peat bogs and, to a certain extent, quarries has been 40 years in the making. The idea is - and we have discussed it - that this authority could bring us back to some sort of even keel to allow local authorities to then move on in their normal enforcement functions in the future. The problem is that some of these cases are so incredibly complicated that they need this level of expertise.

I understand. I have one quick technical question. Am I correct in assuming that the 18 quarries are within the seven local authority functional areas? I include the quarries and the peat extraction sites in that.

No, some of those quarries are in other authorities' areas.

It is national.

As a former county councillor in Offaly, I thought the days of my addressing a chamber back and forth with Ms Delaney and Mr. Murray were over. It is good to welcome them to Leinster House today. I appreciate the magnitude of this issue, which has been around for some time and which is something we have debated in Offaly. The issue of resources has come up time and again.

In the context of the sites, can complaints be made anonymously? What volume of complaints are the witnesses seeing?

Complaints can and are made anonymously, but normally they are not. As Mr. Kehoe mentioned, there is a standard form that is issued to people. We try to get as much detail from those forms as we can. Most of the complaints come from NGOs. We get some from the public. You might get the odd anonymous complaint.

Do the witnesses think that if there was an anonymous option, there would be more engagement? Should the provision of such an option be considered?

I would not have a particular view on it, other than to say that if it is significant unauthorised land use, it would be within our gift to at least investigate it.

Reference was made to sites, the number of landowners involved and so on. In the context of the entire region, which local authority has the biggest problem? Between sites, the scale of sites, the volume of extraction and the number of landowners involved, which authority has the biggest issue?

I do not know the details of other counties' sites, so I would not even hazard a guess as to which authority would have the biggest issue. Suffice to say, however, that we all have issues at some level or other that we need to deal with. Across the seven counties, there are varying arrangements. From Offaly's perspective, we have nine that could be smaller or larger than those in some of the other counties.

Some of the sites straddle two counties, is that correct? Are joint discussions taking place or have approaches been made in that regard? If I understand it correctly, there is one site that straddles the Offaly-Westmeath border.

As a sector, we have engaged to discuss this with the Department. Is that what the Deputy means?

Yes. If it is solely in Offaly, that is one thing. If it crosses the border into the next county, however, that is another matter.

If there are, there would be actions required by the neighbouring authorities.

Has the EPA has furnished enough details in the context of the next steps to be taken? How much of an onus is there on the councils regarding bringing together the evidence they would need once they have been notified by the EPA?

Is the Deputy referring to the level of detail?

Did the EPA come to the councils and state that peat extraction had occurred? Does it get into any sort of detail in terms of what is provided to them?

No, I do not think we have that detail.

Is there any consideration given to-----

The EPA has sent us a certain amount of detail. Obviously, however, if we were in a position to appoint the necessary team to investigate, gather evidence and so on, we would need to gather evidence and take a prosecution against somebody. While the EPA evidence would be useful in building the baseline case, we would still need to gather evidence ourselves and put it forward legally in the context of any action we might take.

How much more work would the councils need to do in terms of substantiating such evidence to the point where it would stand up in a court of law?

It is significant. That is why we think the national solution is the only one. Our legal advice - and we take such advice all the time in taking our enforcement prosecutions - is that there is a high burden of proof. We have to be in a position to prove an offence. That means we have to sign off and prove every item of evidence we put forward, so it is significant.

I imagine that, with any regional enforcement authority, the EPA would have to be at the heart of it. Is that a fair comment to make?

Being honest, I do not think so. Unless the law changes, I envisage that the EPA will continue to carry out enforcement on the sites within its legal jurisdiction and the enforcement authority would deal with everything else.

I have a final question. It is related but separate in a way. When it comes to peat extraction being carried out in other areas, are there any situations in respect of the witnesses will be back here again or in respect of which their counterparts in other local authorities will be obliged to come before us? Could we address those situations now?

Are there any other areas of concern that the witnesses would have in relation to irregular activity in terms of extraction in counties across the country?

The quarries are included in this as well. Quarries have been a difficult enforcement challenge for us in recent decades. The Deputy will be aware of sections 261 and 261A. There are still issues to be resolved around quarries that are complex. Apart from that, the only other area where there might be issues is around waterways, piers, harbours and so on that were developed over hundreds of years and have changed over that period of time. Who knows what the planning status of many of those is. It is another enforcement area. It is not a major issue in the midlands that we represent, but it may be an issue elsewhere. Nothing else comes to mind.

I have two questions. The EPA is operating licensing above the 50 ha mark. Why not just give the job to the EPA of doing the whole lot? What is standing in the way of that as a solution rather than setting up a new body?

That is a consideration. A legislative change would be required to bring that under 50 ha. There are difficulties with a number of the producers or illegal operators going below 50 ha. It is going to be an issue for people. That might be a consideration, but it would require legal change.

If I was an extractor or somebody involved in it and listening in to this, I would not be quaking in my boots based on what I have heard today. The furthest we have gone is warning letters. We have not done any injunctions. Nobody seems to have done any prosecutions. It is concerning; it is worrying. I was hoping we would be it taking away, notwithstanding the idea of a regional regulatory body, which is positive, but it will take time to set up legislation, etc. All the while, there are 300,000 tonnes plus, as per the EPA's report, leaving the country. I am not inspired by what I have heard today. That is not an individual reflection on anybody, but we are not on top of this. The local authorities are not on top of this. The EPA has a certain amount of information. It is the regulator, but it is reliant on the council as the active body to enforce. There are challenges, but we are not on top of it. Do the witnesses want to comment on that? I am going to give each witness three more minutes. I do not think we are going to disagree violently on any of that.

If this was easy to resolve, we would have done it long ago. It points to the difficulty in terms of the complexity of the case. We keep saying that, but it points to the legal issues around trying to enforce the planning laws around these particular developments or the illegal operators. We will be trying and certainly we are trying. There have been various efforts over the years to bring some legislative basis to this in order to resolve it. We got licensing regulations signed into law in 2019, which were subsequently quashed by the courts after challenge. It has been going on for long time. If it was easy to solve, we would have solved it long ago. It is a complex area. When we get into the legalities of it, we see how complex it is. If local authorities were to do it on an individual basis, we would require significant resources. That is why we feel that a regional approach or national approach would be better in pooling the various expertise and resources required to deal with it.

If the onus was on the operator to prove that they have permission to do it, rather than the council having to spend its time proving that they do have not permission to do it, it would make everybody's job a lot easier. I would have thought it should be the other way around.

I agree with the Chair's remarks. It is disappointing to hear that no cases have be taken. Even from a deterrence perspective, strategically taking a few cases even if they are difficult ones is never a bad idea in this situation. I would like to mention some I am not sure we touched on a lot today. Do the county councils see themselves as having a monitoring function on this? The witnesses said they are quite reactive when it comes to these types of things. An issue arises when somebody - an individual or an organisation - raises it with the council. Maybe there is something to be said for having an anonymous means of preparing complaints. It seems like a lot of it is done by NGOs. I am not sure whether it is primarily the EPA or other bodies. Does the council see itself having a monitoring function? Would it consider the use of drones or other technology to monitor these areas to do something proactively rather than waiting for these issues to be raised with it?

We have a monitoring role across our entire county. We have a lot of staff out on the ground all the time. We are continuously picking up things that require planning enforcement and we act on them. We have a system for staff to report them as well as the general public reporting things. We have that role, and we engage on that. Regarding these particular sites, we are aware of them in terms of what is going in our counties. The extraction activity is sporadic and intermittent. That goes to the heart of the difficulty with trying to regulate it through the planning process. The planning process works well if it is for a building, a factory, a harbour or something that is easily defined. We can see when it is there or not. It does not change much over time. This is an activity which is not that amenable to the planning process. That is part of the difficulty.

Is it done in the dead of night? Is it done in the middle of the day? I appreciate that it is sporadic. Are there reasons the council would not turn up when it hears it is going on? Does it arrive on site when these issues are brought to it?

It is not that we would arrive on site, but the difficulty when somebody is extracting peat from a particular site is that our powers to do something about that are limited by the evidence we have and the conclusions we are able to prove in court regarding whether that is an authorised or unauthorised activity. It comes back to that all the time. There is a need to form a solid view with legal advice that what is going on the site is unauthorised, based on the complex history of the site, the changes in the law in the intervening period since the activity started and the scale of the activity now. That is the evidence we need to have before we pull the trigger on a legal action against that firm.

That is understood.

I will come in on the lack of cases making their way to the courts. It is important to say that we are going through the steps. The ultimate aim is to resolve any unauthorised action through enforcement. However, many of the cases we have initiated at the same time either overlap with or subsequently are subject to High Court rulings or High Court cases that are ongoing, the outcome of which has a direct impact on our ability to take enforcement. For example, the Harte Peat case went on for over a decade. It created a decade of legal uncertainty within which we were vulnerable in terms of exposing ourselves to the courts. That is why we would act on the legal advice in that area.

We share the committee's concerns about extra delays. It is important to reiterate the point that without taking these cases on with the full level of resources, including the technical, legal and environmental resources that are needed, we risk losing them. If we lose a case, it could operate indefinitely. That is important to get it right.

I was going to ask the exact same question. I think it would be better for the EPA to have this responsibility because it is already set up for the cases involving more than 50 ha. I understand the complexity, but this is one of the councils' functions. There has not been a huge amount of activity, or a sufficient amount of activity, or sufficient results in this regard. Mr. Hartin mentioned that the council is going through different steps. In County Westmeath, specifically, there are eight locations and it is believed that two of them probably have permissions through a derogation.

If we say there are six, and I want to know specifically exactly what is happening, how many enforcement letters on these six have been given out and how many others have legal cases that could impact them? I am trying to get an idea of what the local authority has been doing in regard to this because it has been going on a long time. If its ultimate goal is to get enforcement, what steps specifically in relation to these six sites is it taking? It is crazy. This has been raised over and over again and Europe has highlighted it. It seems that very little has been done from an enforcement perspective. Will Mr. Hartin go through these particular six cases?

I will not go into specific cases but I will give an example of one site in particular, as a sample of the work we are going through. We served four warning letters and an enforcement notice and then the site itself was subject to High Court action, which brought in legal complexities and hinder our ability to bring it to the next level. This is just one site and we have taken similar actions across a number of them. It is significant in terms of resources required, and the time that passes between each step, as everybody has to be given due process, is a significant drain on the local authority, particularly in instances where we do not see success. Therefore, it is incumbent on us to pool our resources into other areas.

Who took the High Court action?

It was Harte Peat on that site. There have been a number of them. There was also Westland Horticulture.

Was it the EPA?

It was against the EPA or An Bord Pleanála.

The case was against the EPA. Has either council considered picking one site, with a low ownership level or one owner, if it thought it could achieve something on it, and really driving all its resources into that one site and one case, and using it as a deterrent for others? There is clearly no deterrent there for anyone. As the Chair said, even people listening would just go ahead and do it. There would be no comeback for them. Has either local authority ever considered just taking one site it knew it could take a significant successful action against and prioritising it?

We would not initiate any case without believing we could get a successful outcome. However, what history has proven is that these are complex legal scenarios. The EPA has similarly come up against the same complexities when it has tried to take legal actions on the sites.

That goes against what was said earlier, which is that the local authorities got to the point where they sent out the enforcement action but then stopped because they did not have the resources or information to bring it forward. If they thought they had enough with the enforcement action, why are they not driving it through the courts?

These issues only arise through the process. The legal environment changed over ten times across a decade, bringing in different thresholds and environments within which operators can operate. New requirements come in through EU legislation on what is exempted and what is not, what is the burden of proof in terms of when drainage may have commenced on site and what is domestic-scale production. In its report the Department highlighted that the environment being created through precedent made it almost impossible for a local authority to have a successful outcome. These things arise as we move through the process rather than at the outset. We always do our best at the outset to take legal action but we have to work within the regulatory environment that is there, although there are opportunities. We believe our powers could be strengthened through the enforcement system.

I am conscious of the clock but Senator Noonan wants to come back in.

I do not have a question but it is four years since the report was furnished to me by Dr. Prasad and it appears that nothing of any value has happened. I might suggest that we bring the horticultural sector before the committee. It is facing a cliff edge if all of these initiatives come to pass. We absolutely need, as soon as possible, to phase out industrial harvesting of peat in this country. The horticultural sector has buried its head in the sand for decades and it is going to face this cliff edge. I do not know whether there is any merit in bringing its representatives before the committee but the sector needs to be aware of what is happening. I am very disappointed. I am encouraged by the initiative but this could be established tomorrow if the Minister had the will to do it.

We will consider that in terms of the horticultural sector.

I apologise for being late as I had to be at another event. I was member of Kildare County Council for more than ten years and my grandad worked on the bogs in Offaly for Bord na Móna around Walsh Island for the majority of his life. I have a few brief questions. My first is on the breaches that have been reported. Is it the unauthorised development teams that investigate these particular breaches? My next question is on the Harte Peat litigation and the fact it took over a decade. Does the new enforcement model include any safeguard to avoid similar delays? It is great we are seeing this new enforcement model but how do we ensure it does not have the significant delays we have seen in the past? I directed many questions to the EPA earlier and these are my questions for the local authorities.

Any breach of planning reported to us or that we are aware of is investigated. As we outlined earlier, we go through the enforcement process. Difficulties arise in terms of peat with the legal complexities in these cases but they are investigated. The Harte Peat litigation was very long. It was taken by the EPA. It broke a lot of new legal ground in terms of the regulation of peatlands. Hopefully, having gone through that process, any future case will be much shorter because of the decisions that have been taken. Beyond this we cannot really say what other complexities are out there that might take a similar time, unfortunately.

In terms of the enforcement, the unauthorised development teams investigated the complaints previously. Had the unauthorised development teams in the planning departments in Westmeath and Offaly been adequately resourced to deal with this issue in the past?

I will speak for Westmeath and I will let Ms Delaney speak for Offaly. We have never really had enough planning staff in our enforcement teams. Our teams are under significant pressure to deal with the planning applications we are getting to prepare the long-term plans we need for our towns and counties and to deliver on our infrastructure and housing obligations. To be honest, enforcement does not get the attention that it needs. It is something we are trying to address through new resources that we are putting into it in our county. We have a strategic workforce plan that identifies the need for additional planning and non-planning resources. This will address our general planning enforcement requirements but it will not address the difficulties that we all have with the enforcement of complex peat extraction cases, and complex quarry cases in some other counties. This is the benefit of the steering group we are working on with the Department and, hopefully, it will be successful.

Similarly with regard to Offaly's staffing, the team is under significant pressure in terms of planning applications generally but also in relation to large renewable energy projects that have come in over the past number of years in Offaly. People are often pulled from enforcement to deal with the bread and butter applications that are there. There has been a significant lack of staffing in recent years. As Mr. Kehoe said, we have some resources now and we have upscaled to deal with the current level of work but not to deal with the cases before us, the complexities that are there and the level of detail that is required. A lot of counties are in the same boat with regard to planning staff.

We have come to the end of the meeting. I propose that we publish all of the opening statements on the committee's website. Is that agreed? Agreed. On behalf of all the members, I thank the witnesses for taking part in our meeting on this topic.