Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

In this set of amendments I have tried to approach the same issue in a number of ways. If the Minister of State indicates that he is amenable to any one of these approaches, I will be happy to withdraw the other amendments and press forward with the preferred approach. These amendments attempt to address the issue of what happens when an area ceases to be a natural heritage area. It is an attempt to address the fact that land that is de-designated under this Act could potentially be open to commercial exploitation. We know that the Government's overall national strategy is moving away from the commercial cutting of turf.

Amendment 29 provides that "without prejudice to turbary rights [...] harvesting using machinery shall not be permitted". This gets to the issue. Amendment No. 30 sets out clear criteria with regard to household use. I will be very clear, as I have been throughout proceedings, that I do not contest the importance of the relationship societies and families have with bogs and peatland. Many people have, for many generations, exercised their turbary rights. It is one of the lingering features of commonage. I understand the relationship we have with bogs right across the west of Ireland. I do not wish to automatically inhibit that relationship. I note that most natural heritage areas already allow for the exercise of turbary rights. Any area currently designated as a natural heritage area, and where turf cutting has previously been practised, can already allow for the exercise of turbary rights. There is already a precedent of good practice in this regard. In that sense, I wish these areas would remain natural heritage areas. Perhaps an examination of how turbary rights are exercised on those lands might be carried out. The Minister of State might look to that.

If areas are to be de-designated and no longer protected, we need to look to additional layers of protection or clarification. Amendment No. 29 suggests that harvesting using machinery should not be permitted. Amendment No. 31 specifically says that only peat extraction by sleán may be permitted. We have heard people speak very poetically in this house about their love of the birds and the bees, the days they have had on the bog, being out with the flask of tea, and all of the rest. I know of this too because my family has done it in Mayo. I know that it is part of people's experience and an experience they want to pass on, but we are increasingly moving towards a point at which turbary rights will have to recognised as part of a shared heritage. We cannot have people maximising exploitation. It is a very different thing to exercise one's turbary rights by cutting and spreading on the bog oneself or with one's family or neighbours as opposed to simply hiring a contractor and having a sausage machine come in and hoover up a section of bogland. My amendment seeks to respect turbary rights, but to clarify those rights and define inappropriate activity. That is why amendment No. 29 respects household use while not permitting harvesting using machinery. The Minister of State has previously indicated that there were questions and thoughts with regard to what kinds of machinery might be appropriate, especially as we move into an era in which carbon emissions are becoming a concern and scale is becoming an issue.

Amendment No. 31 provides that those who wish to cut by sleán can do so, but it makes clear that the use of machinery is not appropriate. Amendment No. 30 seeks to address another specific issue. Under this amendment, people exercising their turbary rights to extract peat for their household use is fine. That is what is envisaged by turbary rights. It is not envisaged that these rights be passed on to allow others to engage in the extraction or that people exceed what is understood by "household use".I have tried to engage constructively and following discussions with the officials. Having read the transcripts of our previous debates, I tabled supplementary amendments to try to tackle the matter in a new way. It is my understanding that, in the past, in circumstances where people had turbary rights but the location had become a special area of conservation, for example, and turf cutting was longer allowed or appropriate under European law, compensation packages were put forward. In some instances, persons were informed that their turbary rights would effectively be relocated to new areas. Some of these areas may be de-designated under this Act. It is my understanding that people given the right to exercise turbary rights in new areas would be subject to a restriction whereby they would not be allowed to sell that turf and it would not be considered a part of the agreement that the State makes with somebody granted new rights of turbary access in an area.

This is an attempt to ensure that everybody, including those with long-standing or historic turbary rights in respect of a site, as well as those who have turbary rights relocated to a site, would have consistency and where an area ceases to be designated as a natural heritage area, any turf subsequently extracted may not be sold. These amendments are all trying to address not the activity of turf cutting but the way in which it happens, its scale and, in particular, the commercial aspect.

Amendment No. 32 is consequential and would be relevant if one of the others is agreed. Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 relate to something quite similar but they put the regulations base a little further down the line. If the Minister of State indicated an openness in respect of those amendments, it could affect whether I must press any of those in my name.