Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

It is fairly bizarre that in a Bill entitled the Heritage Bill the Government would propose measures that will destroy or threaten with extinction parts of our natural heritage. Like Deputy Smith, I would like the Minister to explain what response she has to the concerns being raised by the people who are knowledgeable and expert in the protection of wildlife. One of the junior Ministers – I will not name him – was chortling during the week when I was speaking about the birds and the bees. He seemed to think it was funny but the birds and the bees matter. The fact that a significant number of bee species face possible extinction, that we have had a huge loss of the bee population, as Deputy Smith said, and that a whole series of birds are on the red list, facing possible extinction because we have not protected their habitats, is serious. The Government needs to explain how allowing measures that would destroy their habitats at crucial and sensitive times of year can possibly be justified.

The point about road safety has been well made. We already have legislative provisions which ensure that local authorities can cut down hedgerows that are a danger to road safety so we simply do not need to do it. Burning times similar to those proposed in the Bill have not stopped upland fires in other places. If somebody lights a match it does not matter at what time of year it is allowed or not, fires are caused. These measures will not prevent some of the things the Government is saying they will prevent but they will destroy the habitats of the birds and the bees.

When our biodiversity needs greater support and protection and certain species are under threat and need to be protected, the Government is introducing measures that will do damage. This makes a mockery of commitments that have been made. We engaged with the Taoiseach the other day on the Government's commitments to biodiversity, yet it is allowing measures that will substantially reduce our biodiversity when it is under threat. Despite it being one of our great assets and it could be a far bigger asset, the Government is allowing measures that will reduce our biodiversity. I do not see the justification for them.

This should not be viewed as a debate between the environmentalists and the farmers, although it is often played out in that manner. I accept that insofar as we need to take measures to protect our biodiversity, in doing so we must also support and engage with farmers and rural communities.

One of the amendments we tabled, which was ruled out of order - I do not know why but I will not get into that debate now - proposed establishing a proper consultation process with the various stakeholders to examine how these issues could be addressed in a way that would not be damaging to the environment. This did not occur in the context of the Bill. The Minister is indicating there was consultation but according to the environmental organisations, that is not the case. Those organisations are obviously all telling porkies. They are very unhappy about what the Minister is proposing and 30,000 people have signed petitions protesting against her proposals.

An email I received suggests this measure may well be in breach of the EU birds directive. Has that been properly assessed? A regulatory impact assessment was not done on this Bill. Such an assessment constitutes best practice. When one is considering introducing new regulations that may have a substantial impact on the environment they should be subject to a regulatory impact assessment. Effectively, what the Minister is saying is that changing the law will itself be the assessment because there will be a trial. She should have ensured a proper assessment was carried out beforehand to gauge whether the measures in this Bill could fall foul of EU directives on environmental protection, the birds directive and our biodiversity. She should have engaged properly with environmentalists and people who are knowledgeable and expert in these areas who say she has not engaged to a satisfactory degree. I appeal to her to reconsider and support this amendment which proposes the deletion of this controversial and concerning section.

See this speech in context