Seanad debates

Thursday, 2 March 2017

Heritage Bill 2016: Committee Stage (Resumed)

 

10:30 am

Photo of Kevin HumphreysKevin Humphreys (Labour) | Oireachtas source

In many ways, it is the farmers in rural Ireland who have maintained the environment over a long period. As I have said previously about the Heritage Bill, the rules and regulations that we bring in are not aimed at the people who look after the land and protect the heritage and wildlife.We are bringing it in for the small percentage of people who do the opposite. In the same way that the vast majority of people never break into a house, we make breaking into houses illegal not because the vast majority of people obey the laws but because of the tiny minority who do not. We have to protect the environment.

The example of the red grouse is a good example. The numbers dropped disastrously, quite close to the level of extinction. That happened because of poor science and lack of research. Some 70% of its natural habitat was destroyed. We are now fighting for an endangered species to be brought back again. It is being brought back through good science. There were in-depth surveys carried out between 2008 and 2010 on how red grouse numbers could be restored in Ireland. It was carried out on the basis of good science. Unfortunately, the good science was not done before 70% of the habitat was destroyed. We are now talking about a possible loss of habitat for many endangered species.

We need to be cautious. All I am arguing for today is good science, proper pilot schemes, proper measurements, and a look at the impact on habitat. Senator Daly's example is good. I admire and commend him on the work he has done and the work done by many people in rural Ireland. We got to that point because of poor science, research was not carried out, and 70% of the natural habitat was destroyed. We are now trying to build up the numbers and it is costing a hell of a lot more money than it would have had a percentage of that habitat been protected in the first place. That is why people in the House are so passionate on this matter. It is a little bit like a doctor, who should do no harm. If we are going to do this, let us research it properly with a small pilot area.

We do not know the regulations. I thought that there may have been a possibility of having that conversation as to what those regulations are rather than it being a question of trust. Is it that we are going to protect a certain species, extend an upland burning ban to protect red grouse and ensure the numbers increase? Those are the types of regulations. There was ample time, and there is still ample time before we finish debating and go to Report Stage in this House, for the good science to be shown to us and for us to test and analyse it. Are we doing the right thing for the heritage of this country? That is why I am objecting to section 1, because I believe it destroying the heritage of this country.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.