Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 12, to delete lines 2 to 7.

I will return to the argument I was making. My view is this. If there is a contested scientific issue about how best to develop our ecology in these degrading and in-crisis habitats, I argue that the approach should be scientific and that scientific research is needed, rather than legislation. I have never seen circumstances where one says we will use legislation as our research tool. I would have no objection to the Minister saying she was going to engage in a major study of how best to protect these habitats, on which I have strong views. That the Minister would come in with her hobnailed boots and set out legislation, even with a break-out clause after two years, in my mind, is not the proper approach.

There was consultation which concentrated on the uplands issue. That is the section we seek to delete in this amendment. There was a very good submission made by the Irish Wildlife Trust in the consultation process. In its submission, under the heading of scientific basis, it included a quote from the Ember Project which was carried out on similar uplands in the United Kingdom - I understand on the Pennines. It looked, on a scientific basis, at the effect of burning on uplands between areas where permission had been applied for and those where it had not. People were saying the burning was justified on the basis that it was protecting the habitat of grouse. As I understand it, it was the first time that detailed scientific research and analysis were carried out which showed that there was major environmental degradation, including a change to the water table which had an effect on the stability of the peat bogs in the region, which often led to degradation of the peat boglands. There are also implications in terms of issues with run-off into water streams. There is a major effect on insect life, ecohydrology and bird life. It varies between different species. That one study alone could be presented as a case for moving away from burning as an ecological management tool on uplands.

The Irish Wildlife Trust called - rightly, to my mind - for an end to all burning. I cite as an example George Monbiot, the great English environmental journalist, who has made a real assessment of what is actually happening on these uplands, where we see that the natural state condition has been degraded and denuded of wildlife and that the process could be reversed in a way that would be hugely significant and beneficial in terms of protection and biodiversity. However, there is none of that in the Government's approach. There is just a continuation of the current system and an extension of the burning period as if it was ecologically progressive. I fundamentally disagree and would like to see a much wider, bigger vision for how we could extend biodiversity, store carbon and provide a livelihood for people, particularly in rural areas.

The Origin Green advertisement, with all of the lovely videos with violin music in the background, runs contrary to the reality that under Fine Gael there is no concern or care for the environment, of which the Bill is a symptom. There are specific concerns. The Minister says it is part of a series of protection measures to restore curlew numbers. I would love to see the scientific papers that would back that up. We have time between now and Report Stage to have a detailed argument about whether this will be a help in the fight against the extinction of the curlew, which would be of seminal significant importance in dealing with the ongoing and widespread loss of biodiversity we are seeing. I fundamentally disagree with the Minister's contention that this is a positive environmental measure. We should delete the section and not have any extension of the burning period; we should instead come up with a proper Government strategy for uplands and a different vision for how we could use them that would be in tune with a world facing climate change and shrinking biodiversity.