Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

They are slightly different. In amendment No. 17 we are suggesting, where land is de-designated and is no longer an NHA, that without prejudice to turbary rights for household use, commercial harvesting should not be permitted. I have been very clear that I support turbary rights but there are intergenerational justice issues involved here, not simply in terms of climate change and the damage we have done to the planet, the consequences of which young people will have to live with. Even within turbary rights and within families, there are intergenerational justice issues. Turbary rights are deep and historical and like seaweed harvesting rights are traditional rights associated with household use. We are talking about the cutting of turf for household use, to which I am not opposed. Turbary rights are important which is why these amendments seek to protect them. However, there is a problem in that we do not have a definition of household use. The intergenerational justice issues are not simply around climate change, carbon emissions or the injustice that has brought young people onto the streets in Ireland and around the world. The equivalent of what five generations would have cut in the past is being cut by one generation through the use of industrial machinery. We are seeing the cutting of turf on a scale that is purely commercial. We need to find a balance in terms of protecting turbary rights for future generations. That does not mean a blank cheque or a blank slate that tells people they can do as they wish.

We passed a Bill on fossil fuel divestment in these Houses and we know that we are coming to the end of the fossil fuel era. Why, in that context, would we continue to encourage and open up new areas for commercial turf cutting? My fear is that we are entering a period where we have a "last orders" mindset, where people try to commercially cut as much as they possibly can in the time remaining.That is why my preference is that, after areas are de-designated as natural heritage areas, turbary rights continue and are protected but commercial harvesting of turf is not allowed.

I have a strong preference for amendment No. 17, which calls for a complete end to commercial turf cutting in natural heritage areas after they are de-designated. However, the intent behind amendment No. 18 is even harder to disagree with. The amendment states that commercial harvesting shall not be permitted beyond 2030, which is the target date by which Bord na Móna has committed semi-State and State bodies to ending commercial harvesting of peat and ceasing its use as a fuel. It is very reasonable to ask that the same standard apply in respect of these privately-owned lands which are going to be de-designated. If the plan is for the State to move out of this area after 2030, that is too far away. I would prefer it to be 2025 because 2030 is the year when scientists tell us it will be too late to stop extracting. The 11 or 12 years we have left on climate change are not years in which to get around to changing what we do. They are the years in which we need to repair the damage that has been done if we are going to save our planet. It is a minimum standard that privately-owned bogs are not cut commercially when the State stops commercially cutting for fuel in 2030.

Amendment No. 17 strikes a better balance because it respects turbary rights. If amendment No. 17 is accepted, grandchildren may be able to get turbary rights on the de-designated bogs and keep the connection with the land. That means not giving it all away in one go and managing it responsibly. I ask the Minister of State to indicate if he is open to accepting either amendment No. 17 or amendment No. 18.