Catherine Martin (Dublin Rathdown, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

In this section, the Government is determined to attack our hedgerows and the wealth of wildlife to which they are home. Our hedgerows act as linear forestry. They provide feeding for birds, insects and mammals. They are integral to biodiversity, pollination, nesting and future breeding. Bumblebees and wild honey bees will also suffer by extending the permitted times to slash and cut down vegetation and flowering wild plants. Bees are clinging on but they face a barrage of man-made hazards, including the pesticides that the Minister referred to last night. Pesticides are the biggest perpetrators but that does not mean we should ignore the effects that hedge-cutting has on bees. It is predicted that one third of all bee species in Ireland will be extinct by 2030 and extending the hedge-cutting dates will amount to death by 1,000 cuts.

Amendment No. 26 proposes to delete section 8 in its entirety, removing the exemption from section 40 of the Wildlife Act for work carried out under section 70 of the Roads Act. This is a point which several Deputies have raised but the Minister has not properly acknowledged. This section does not fall under the same trial period restrictions as section 7(2) but provides a permanent, complete and unregulated exception. The unregulated nature of this exception is very worrying.

The Minister made the point that in the context of hedge cutting under section 7(1), as a result of any ministerial regulations put forward, there would only be the cutting of a single year's growth and that flails would be prohibited but there are no such regulations under section 8. The Minister cannot hide behind the regulations she claims she will make because this is a complete and unregulated exemption entered into primary legislation. Under section 8, anything goes. More than one season's growth goes. Flails are fair game. Amendment No. 27 restricts the disapplication of section 40 of the Wildlife Act and section 8 solely to work carried out by a local authority or pursuant to a notice from a local authority. This amendment would stop section 8 from opening this exemption up to work carried out under any subsection of section 70 of the Roads Act, but would allow people to engage with local authorities to either have obstructions or hazardous material removed or to remove it themselves on foot of notice from a local authority.

Does the Minister intend to introduce a ban on the use of the flail during the nesting season where cutting for road safety is necessary? Its basic design is such that it fires hedge debris back into the heart of the hedge at high speed. Anything in the hedge that could not fly away would not stand a chance. The dangers of this type of machinery are writ large in operators' safety manuals. It is incredible to think that it can be operated on a public road by operators who have not had to pass a competency test in its safe operation. There have been fatalities with this type of machinery. A reciprocating, finger-bar type cutter would be less disruptive but such cutters are not as widespread or readily available as flail machines in many parts of the country.

When a local authority cuts hedges for safety purposes during the nesting season, there is invariably a flag man or two operating to ensure traffic safety while the work is under way. Does the Minister intend to create an equivalent obligation on landowners for hedge cutting to be carried out by individuals? That would make it costly for landowners and no doubt there would be those who would seek to cut corners. Will we be increasing the risk of accidents by permitting landowners to carry out unsupervised hedge cutting on the roads during the busiest month of the year? Has that been considered?

I also wish to clarify statements made by the Minister yesterday. She referred to the work of Birdwatch Ireland, in the context of sections 7 and 8, as being both a flagrant distortion of the facts and unscientific. She repeatedly said yesterday that Birdwatch Ireland had said the decline in numbers of the curlew was due to burnings. Birdwatch Ireland never claimed that. It agreed with the Minister's experts that habitat loss and degradation are the primary reasons that there are only 120 breeding pairs of curlews left in the country. However, Birdwatch Ireland has advised that a relaxation of burning regulations could put the curlew over the edge as a result of habitat loss and degradation. The curlew is not necessarily in the position it is in because of the burning and Birdwatch Ireland never made that claim. However, the Minister's new regulations will sound its death knell. It is important that the Minister understands that she is misinformed and is misattributing to Birdwatch Ireland statements that it simply has not made. With respect, when one is making accusations of misinformation, it is important that one is properly informed.

The changes in this section and the previous one are the most significant roll back of the legal protections for wildlife in the history of the State. Now is the time when we should be increasing our protection for vulnerable wildlife rather than reducing it. There are no positive changes for wildlife as a result of the Bill. Tá an Comhaontas Glas go mór i gcoinne an Bhille seo mar is léir do na dall go mbeidh tubaistí gan aon mhaith ag eiceolaíocht na hÉireann agus cothóidh an Bille seo slad mór millteanach ar oidhreacht nádúrtha na tíre.

See this speech in context