Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I wish to speak in favour of this amendment. It is important we insert “social, economic and” into this Bill for the simple reason that when legislation is challenged in the courts on the distribution of State funds or what social end or economic principles are prioritised, the courts always take the view they will not hear this because these matters are determined here in this House. This is not a particularly detailed amendment. There are many other amendments I would like to support but I will not be able to because this Bill is being guillotined. My question is, in a democracy - I hope the Minister regards himself as a democrat – why can we not have a full debate? Why must it be guillotined? Why does this happen with every Bill of consequence? We spend hours ráiméising on statements on this and questions and answers on that. There are many questions, a few statements and never any answers. What is so frightening about debate? If the Government is confident in its position, stand over it. Do not send in the Chief Whip to guillotine a debate, as has been done tonight.

If this is, indeed, the Bill of a generation that is going to tackle climate change, I do not understand why the Minister will not debate it. I appreciate he believes he has the answers, but I hope he does think we are all living in the midst of a Messiah. I am not sure whether the Minister is a Stone Roses fan or not, but the approach he has taken of “I am the resurrection and I am the life”, and that he is not going to listen to any other amendments from other Deputies, is perverse. It is anti-democratic, and the Minister is a democrat. At the very least, I know he is a democrat and he is a decent man.

What is it about being in government? Why is it that once he got inside Government Buildings, he now thinks he has all the answers, that nobody else has any, that he thinks he has a monopoly on truth and there be badness on the other side, and that he cannot even debate the Bill or even debate the economic principles? There are economic principles that I want to talk about. I agree that climate change is what this Dáil will be remembered for and how it treats it, more than how we disastrously deal with Covid in this State.

As a farmer and someone who grew up on a farm, I am willing to accept that perhaps we need a more plant-based diet. Perhaps we need fewer animal products. However, if we in the western world, in Europe, are to consume animal-based products, let us at least consume animal-based products that are produced in a place that is least damaging to the environment, that produces the least amount of carbon emissions. The Government’s Bill penalises that. It may be counter-intuitive to suggest that intensive farming is beneficial, but we know grassland that is grazed quite a bit sequesters more carbon. We know that. Milk in Ireland, unlike in other European countries, is produced off grass. There is a significant amount of carbon sequestration going on through the production of that milk. If we were to produce all of the milk for Europe, that would be a good thing and not a bad thing. We can produce milk in Ireland with the least amount of carbon emissions per litre of milk, the lowest number of kilos of carbon. I think it is slightly over 1 kg, if I am not mistaken, and there is a drive to get it under 1 kg. We can do that, so that is a good thing.

On whether we are going to eat beef, I have a vested interest as I am a beef producer, but I like to think that I cherish the environment and that I want to pass it on to the next generation, but I get screwed every year by producers. If the Government wants to address the issue, let us produce beef in a way that is least damaging in Europe, because it is not going to stop the consumption of beef in Europe overnight. Let it at least be produced off a grass-based system where there is carbon sequestration rather than in intensive feedlots, which are growing in popularity in Ireland and are the dominant way of producing beef in other European states. The Bill does nothing to address that.

I appreciate that may not be the Minister’s area of expertise and may not be the background from whence he came. It may not be representative of those who he represents in this House. That is why I come back to the messianic approach, that he has all the answers and none of us have any answers, because that is not what deliberative democracy is about. That is not what we were elected to do. I often wonder about the idea of a citizens’ assembly and that we need one to solve this, that and the other problem. We have a citizens’ assembly. There are 160 ordinary people in this House. If anybody in Clare does not like me representing them, he or she can run for election. Any such person will have the same chance and prospects as I had, particularly as an independent. Regardless of that, you can join a party if that is what rows your boat and submit to a three-line whip so that you will have to vote for a Minister’s messianic approach to something.

I do not mean to sound negative because I applaud what the Minister is about. We need to challenge the climate crisis and the amount of plastics used. How many hundreds of millions of euro of junk plastic did we import from China, along with a virus?

Of course, you could not say that six months ago because it was censored by the media in Ireland but now that Joe Biden has said it is okay to suspect it, we can all talk about it. What is it about this single approach? Everybody thinks his or her approach is the correct one and that nobody else's is worth listening to, debating or even acknowledging. The Government would not even think about saying we could sit a week longer. It is not like any of us were leaving the country on holidays last week; heaven forbid. We have plenty of time. We are sitting here in this empty assembly, wasting taxpayers' money because we are not debating key issues. Bills are being rammed through. That is not democracy or debate. If those Bills are challenged in the courts there will be a presumption that they were debated in this House when, in fact, they were not. It is disappointing. I reflected from the ashes of defeat in an election and one of the things I learned was that I had much fewer answers than I thought I had. I do not mean to personalise this but I just do not understand why this legislation is being rammed through, why last week's Bill was rammed through or why we have so much time to debate nonsense. Covid is an unexpected but key issue this Dáil faces yet we could not debate it. This is the issue of our generation and the Government will not allow a debate on it.

See this speech in context