Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I wish to be very clear about what this amendment proposes. I question whether it does genuinely arise from Committee Stage. I ask that the Minister not suggest in any way that the amendment represents an extension of or any aspect of the spirit of the amendment we proposed on Committee Stage. On Committee Stage, my colleagues and I supported an amendment which sought to deal in a very practical way with section 70 orders, which allow the cutting of hedgerows. We engaged genuinely with issues of road safety.

Let us be clear that there are two matters here: section 70 of the Roads Act 1993 and section 40(1) of the Wildlife Act. It is crucial we get this right. Section 40(1) of the Wildlife Act concerns the protection of our wildlife and sets out that: "It shall be an offence for a person to cut, grub, burn or otherwise destroy, during the [closed season], any vegetation growing on any land". Subsection (2) of section 40 of the Wildlife Act offers a number of exemptions, mainly reasonable ones. Meanwhile, section 70 of the Roads Act 1993 states that where there is a road safety concern, a landowner is obliged to take reasonable action to address that concern. There is the natural heritage imperative and the obligation in respect of road safety. This system has been in place for over 24 years. The Roads Act 1993 came subsequent to the Wildlife Act 1976 and had regard to it. According to the system we have had in place, section 70 orders may be issued by a local authority to allow a landowner to fulfil his or her section 70 obligations on road safety. That is the balance that has been struck. In 2000, we sought to affirm further that balance and we produced legislation to make very clear the importance of the balance between regulation and the duty to safety.That is why we have a system in place which allows a landowner to take action where there is a road safety issue. Such an order can be issued 365 days of the year. We propose to go further. We recognise that, in many cases, a landowner or concerned citizen might identify an issue before the local authority does. We seek to provide that such a person would be able to request a section 70 order from a local authority, regulated under clear criteria, permitting the individual to take action to ensure road safety. In good faith, we have looked to strengthen the section 70 order permit.

The provision the Minister has put before us goes against the spirit of what has happened over two decades. It is a move to get rid of the order and permit issuing system altogether. It states that under section 42 of the Wildlife Act, we will add, as an exemption, any landowner who feels he or she has a concern about road safety. Such landowners are, therefore, to be exempt from obligations under sections 40 and 41 of the Wildlife Act. That means cutting, grubbing, burning and destroying are back on the table. When we repeal the obligations, we will make it clear that it is now permitted to do these things and all of the changes we have put in place will become meaningless. It does a deep disservice to the amendment proposed by Fianna Fáil which sought to provide for a reasonable accommodation on roadsides in the month of August. This is an extraordinarily opportunistic move. I know that the Minister will talk about a tree falling in the middle of the night and ask how people will get a section 70 order at 5 a.m. Trees have been falling in the middle of the night for 23 years, including in the 16 or 17 years since the Act of 2000. We have moved on and accommodated it. Now, right before we come to the conclusion of this debate, we are seeing an amendment being snuck in which will allow any landowner to take any action he or she personally deems to be appropriate for health and safety reasons in respect of a roadside hedge at any time of year. Regulation is out the window, as are section 70 orders. The role of the local authorities is being absolutely disregarded. The amendment is an insult to them and this House. It is an insult and an injury to our natural heritage. It is another abrogation of responsibility. We are washing our hands. It is shameful that a Minister with responsibility for heritage would seek to gut the Wildlife Act of which she is guardian.