Annie Hoey (Labour) | Oireachtas source

We are using a lot of language about extracting and harvesting. I do not know if that is a reflection of what we are talking about when we speak of removing peat from the earth. It is more suitable to say we are mining peat because it is not renewable in any relevant timescale. It takes an enormous amount of time to renew peatlands. We should start calling it mining. I do not know how the public would feel about that but it is a useful word to put into people's minds.

Many of the points made in the debate end up being repeated but I want to talk about the legal question. I have spoken to a number of people about this in recent days because I wanted to get a good background on the legal aspect of this. I am open to correction by either the Attorney General or the Minister of State but there seems to be a strong belief that this Bill contravenes EU law. One of the EU laws that people I have spoken to claim would be contravened is the one that was given effect by Deputy Bruton when he was Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment. Does this Bill contravene a law introduced in the previous Dáil by a Fine Gael Minister? It is also worth pointing out that we are not going to meet our self-imposed deadlines or those set by international agreements without converting jobs designed for peat extraction into jobs in areas such as bog rewetting and other vital climate measures which fit in with a just transition.

There is a lot of talk about whether sustainable alternatives exist and about how many people have access to them. Again, it is important to highlight that there is an environmental impact to importing peat as well as a financial cost. No one would say the status quois sustainable. We have this bizarre situation where peat is leaving the country, which is unsustainable and bad for the environment, yet people in Ireland who need peat are not able to access it.Senator Pauline O'Reilly raised a good point. Is it because it is not profitable to sell that peat in Ireland? What is going on? Why do we have so much coming out? Why are we importing peat? We have to be honest; the best place for peat to be is in the ground. We talk about the value peat has to the sector but the best value peat has is to our planet. It is only two weeks since COP26, we are in the middle of a climate crisis and we simply will end up as a sizzling wasteland in the next couple of decades unless we get to grips with it. The best place for peat to be for the planet is in the ground. There is no question about the value of peat. Peatland is one of the best carbon stores in the world. It is better than all other vegetation on the planet. We have very little time left to reach our climate targets. Bogs are some of the best tools we have to absorb carbon into the earth.

I am not sure presuming on sustainable peat harvesting for two years is the best way to deal with this. I agree with some previous speakers who pointed out that two years is not a pause. It will make matters significantly worse for a generation of people and politicians. I am sure there are a couple of people in this room who hope to be politicians in 2030. Those people will be dealing with the consequences of not taking things like this seriously. They are potentially creating a problem for themselves down the line.

I welcome the Minister of State indicating the report on recommendations on how to proceed will be published. It is clear that is what a great many people want. It hopefully will provide a solution to this.

Is the temporary suspension of laws, particularly EU directives, the best way to govern, lead, legislate and make political decisions? I do not know that temporarily suspending laws because we need to get to grips with them is the best way to do things. I am not entirely clear in that regard.

Currently, large-scale peat extraction needs both planning permission and EPA licensing, with in-depth assessment of environmental and climate impacts under both regimes. That is a requirement under EU law and this legislation proposes to not have that. Having both, that is, the environmental assessment and others, is really important. I do not have any objection to that. I do not know that we should be trying to circumvent environmental protection objectives of key EU directives. That would amount to a breach of, if not EU law, certainly our commitment to co-operation with EU directives. That is not a particularly good look or vibe at the moment when we are dealing with a crisis.

I agree with Senator Boylan that it is frustrating that we have proposed legislation coming from Government Senators in this House that is not being supported by other Government party members. It is not an effective way to do law or build cross-party support. Those of us in the Opposition are looking on and wondering what is going on if they cannot get agreement amongst themselves. It is not a good way to do legislation or proceed with things.

The main concern of our party is that this is not compatible with EU law, EU directives and certainly not with what we have agreed in terms of EU co-operation. That is not a very good reason to pass legislation when there are so many questions over it.