Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)

Like my colleagues, I am pleased to speak in favour of this motion. It is fitting that when we vote on it tomorrow night, it will be the first anniversary of the election of this Dáil. To me, that is quite fitting because what we have seen on this issue in the course of the past year is a process of democratic engagement, the likes of which has never been seen in this country.

As part of that process, lay people have given of their time and resources to travel the length and breadth of the country to engage with residents affected by this issue. Some representatives of these organisations have spent over 118 days on the road, engaging in discussions with their neighbours and people they had never met before. Countless public meetings have been held across the country. Hundreds of people have attended these real town hall meetings in order to air their grievances and look for solutions.

Families already reeling from austerity are worried about their ability to meet their fuel needs by cutting turf on plots on which they have had turf cutting rights for many generations. I have met many of the people affected during the campaign against the household tax. Some of them turned up at meetings in towns such as Athlone and Newbridge, County Kildare. They are feeling the effects of austerity, the attacks on rural Ireland and the ending of a particular way of life. They feel strongly about this issue which they see as the last straw. I have no doubt that such people will be in attendance tomorrow night in their droves to make sure our vote marks the beginning of the end of the issue they have faced for so long. Government Deputies will accept that it is undoubtedly the case that residents feel an acute sense of betrayal by Fine Gael, in particular. Representatives of Fine Gael led voters to believe they would be on their side if they were elected. The initiative proposed by Deputy Flanagan will give Fine Gael Deputies an opportunity tomorrow to do something positive and overcome some of the damage that has resulted from the clear betrayal I have mentioned.

Deputy Flanagan has alluded to the process of designating areas as special areas of conservation. When one examines some of the areas in question, it appears the designation process is random and arbitrary. The Deputy mentioned the map covering the Derrynabrock bog. A line was drawn down the middle of it. A big chunk of the bog was left out in the designation, while fields were included in it. Where was the scientific basis for this? Similarly, Kilteevan bog was designated as a special area of conservation, while large industrial bogs in the area owned by Bord na Móna were not included, even though they were not in production and the habitats involved were just as worthy of preservation. Kildare County Council allowed housing to be built on a flood plain near Mouds bog near my home town of Newbridge. If the bog floods, as is proposed by the measure, the water table will be raised and the chances of flood damage to housing will be increased. How can this be environmentally positive? Some of the designations would lead one to believe visits to these sites were not made. It is certainly not the case that all of the bogs were examined. I suggest old maps were used in this regard. It is clear that the designation process took place against the backdrop of Ireland being threatened by the European Union. The idea was that every moment's delay would cost the taxpayer tens of thousands of euro. Obviously, this was not the case. Such a suggestion motivated much of the designation process in the background.

This is an example of the usual Àla carte attention being paid to European Union directives and proposals. When it comes to issues such as bogs or septic tanks, we are told there is only one way to implement directives. When it comes to corporation tax, however, the European Union can be ignored and stood down. When it comes to abortion rights, it is also a case of "who cares, let us ignore the European Union." When it comes to these issues, we decide to hide behind the European Union and blame it for what is being done. I suggest it is entirely possible for the Government to implement the measures being proposed by the Turf Cutters and Contractors Association, while complying with European legislation. I do not accept the view that it is not permissible under Irish law for turf cutting to take place with conservation on these sites. There are ways in which it can be permissible; for example, in instances where there are no alternatives to co-existence. In fairness to the representatives of the turf cutters, they have found alternative sites in the vast majority of cases. Where they have not been able to do so, no alternative is possible. In that sense, co-existence is legitimate.

I suggest the over-riding public interest is an imperative reason to defend the rights of those who have engaged in this activity for many years. It is the case that this is a priority habitat. The evidence of the Government's own statistics demonstrates that, as Deputy Thoms Pringle said, turf cutting is not the only activity that has an impact on raised bogs. There are countless examples of places where the active bog is decreasing, even though no turf is being cut. There are other examples of places where the active raised bog is increasing, even though no turf is being cut. Similarly, there are examples of places where the active raised bog is increasing, even though turf is being cut. Turf cutting is not the only activity that is detrimental to these bogs. That is vindicated by the scientific evidence available in the Government's own reports. This is a hugely important part of the process. It is entirely within the Government's remit to do this. The solution being proposed by the Turf Cutters and Contractors Association recognises the importance of the habitat and the rights of individuals who have a long association with raised bogs. The position of people who have respected, looked after and passed on such bogs through the generations has not been given sufficient status. As has been said, the proposal would protect an area greater than the size of any facility which will be used for continued turf cutting. An alternative proposal that a greater area be protected is being made. The relocation proposition is entirely credible and testament to the active engagement and participation that has taken place on a voluntary basis. It is a positive step.

I have examined some of the submissions we received today from those who oppose the motion. They have suggested relocation would perpetuate unsustainable peat-burning and deny investment in alternative low carbon energy sources. To be honest, such a suggestion really weakens the argument of the Friends of the Irish Environment. The contention that relocation would mean an opportunity to invest in renewable energy sources would be lost is just ridiculous, given that we already have the designation. Where are the Government's efforts to develop renewable energy sources? Last week the Minister, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, denied that the development of the sector was Labour Party policy prior to last year's general election. There is absolutely no evidence to support that proposition, particularly given that the number of bogs being preserved is greater than the number on the table. Any proposal that will work will undoubtedly need the co-operation of those involved in it. In the absence of such co-operation, anything proposed will be doomed to failure.

The purpose of the motion and this campaign has been to urge the Government to work with residents, particularly in areas where there will have to be co-existence, and come up with the best areas. The only sustainable solution will be the one that is accompanied by active engagement. If such a solution is to be delivered, resources and energy will have to be invested in this process. If the Government is serious about what it is doing, it will have to be done in this way. I reiterate that nobody will be conned by this. There is a substantial degree of scepticism about the Government's record in this regard such that nobody will take promises lightly. I urge the Government to take the opportunity to repair some of the damage it has done.

See this speech in context