This is a very important Bill. It has many ramifications. We need to make sure that we consider carefully all the interests concerned. We should seek to accommodate those who have genuinely held concerns with regard to road safety, the protection of biodiversity and the interests of landowners and farmers so we can have meaningful accommodation for all relevant interests appropriate to a Bill entitled Heritage Bill 2016. This has not happened to date, however. The Bill, as originally drafted, caused deep concern regarding the impact on national heritage and biodiversity. As completed in the Seanad, following further changes introduced by the Minister, it is arguably worse.
There are a number of different, but equally serious, issues at play here with this Heritage Bill. The primary rationale for the Bill was to reverse the provision in the Wildlife Act 2000 and allow for the burning of vegetation in March and the cutting or destruction of hedgerows in August. Of course, there are many arguments for and against such a measure that must be considered in this Chamber but much is at stake between environmental concerns, farming concerns and issues of health and safety.
The pretext the Minister has given for allowing the destruction of hedgerows in August is that of road safety. Of course, road safety is vital. A year ago, early on a Sunday morning, my wife and I and my four young children were driving along a narrow country road just beside my house. A speeding white van came in our direction and, without slowing down, it smashed into our car and shunted our seven-seater about 10 ft. back into the ditch. We were all injured. My very young daughter and I sustained head injuries. I am thankful that we all seem to have recovered since then. I know how important road safety is, therefore. It is of paramount importance. It is a life and death issue.
A provision exists within the Road Traffic Act 1993 to allow for the removal of overgrown hedges if they are deemed hazardous or potentially so. If it is not sufficient or used properly, then we have a responsibility in the Oireachtas to reform it or make it fit for purpose. In the Seanad, Sinn Féin cosigned an amendment to extend the application of section 70 orders so landowners and members of the public could apply to the authority for the section 70 order so they could cut roadside hedges if they are a risk to safety. This is a very practical measure which would allow for a degree of shared vigilance and responsibility. This was voted down by Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, however.
I would like to know whether the Minister of State, Deputy Joe McHugh, or the Minister, Deputy Heather Humphreys, consulted the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Shane Ross, on the issue raised in the Seanad debate. If road safety is the primary motive behind a section of this Bill, why has the Minister responsible for transport not been more closely involved? It is of great importance to his portfolio. Why has the Minister not contacted the Road Safety Authority to discuss the road safety concerns she has? If she has not, it is a glaring gap. The Road Safety Authority confirmed to me two weeks ago that it has had no contact with officials from the Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs on this matter. We are told this Bill will bring about road safety, but neither the Minister responsible for transport nor the Road Safety Authority has had an input into its development.
How closely has the Minister worked with the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment on the proposals to assess the legislation's impact on nature? What consultation has there been with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine? The IFA has met the Minister on a number of occasions to lobby for this Bill. The advantage to farmers is that land management is easier if hedge-cutting is allowed in August. It can be more convenient for them to cut during this time. There is, however, an environmental cost. The Minister responsible for the environment may not be aware of this as he has not met environmental groups such as BirdWatch Ireland or the Irish Wildlife Trust, despite their numerous requests. Ministers must realise that the importance of hedgerows to Ireland's nesting birds and to biodiversity cannot be exaggerated. Approximately 50% of Irish birds nest in our hedgerows. The role of hedgerows is particularly important in light of the very low percentage of tree cover in Ireland. We have only about 10% tree cover in this country. Ireland's forest cover is among the lowest in Europe, second lowest only to Malta. The total amount of hedgerows in Ireland is equivalent to 37% of our forest area. Our native woodlands make up only 1% of the country's land area.
Last year, in the north of Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales, the month of August was closed to hedge-cutting in order to comply with an EU directive to protect wildlife. Therefore, why are we seeking to extend the period when it raises environmental concerns?
We have experienced a huge decline in the variety of our bird species over the past two decades. Currently, one quarter of our bird species are in decline, as are 31% of our habitats. Increased hedge-cutting would not only have a negative impact on our bird population but also on our bees, which are an integral part of the environment for pollination. Believe it or not, it is worth an estimated €54 million in economic terms every year. It is invaluable in supporting our delicate ecosystems. Has the Minister factored in the effect this will have on the all-Ireland pollinator plan?
A study carried out in Britain indicated that the frequent cutting of hedges has a significant impact on biomass production, with fewer flowers, whose number is down by 75%, and fewer berries, whose number is down by 83%, than with monitored, uncut hedges. Frequent cutting obviously has a serious effect on wildlife.
Hedgerows have another valuable environmental role as they sequester carbon from the environment and help prevent soil erosion and flooding.
The importance of reducing the cutting of hedges was recognised in the North. The practice in the North is now in line with ours. The National Trust stated that this date change would present little difficulty and that farmers recognised the benefits of biodiversity that an extended protected period for hedgerows will deliver in providing wildlife corridors. However, the Minister wants to take a retrograde step and reverse the measures put in place by the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000.
What is bizarre is the pseudo-scientific approach that the Department is taking. It talks about a pilot, but there is no scientific basis for the proposed changes and there is no methodology for this particular pilot. Pilots, by their very nature, should have measurable data that can be collected for a level of analysis. This does not exist in the Government's plans. BirdWatch Ireland urged the Minister to commission research on Irish egg-laying dates before any changes were made. The Minister has ignored this advice and wants to make legislative changes first and then conduct the research afterwards in this nationwide two-year so-called pilot programme. The public consultation on the Wildlife Act in 2015 received 187 submissions, but no report was ever published. Why was that?
Effectively, the Government is now railroading legislation without actually having the vital engagement with the public. Engagement implies a conversation and reciprocation. This seems to me like a data collection exercise with no public output. However, a copy of an internal report on the consultation was acquired by the Hedge Laying Association under the access to information on the environment legislation, which states that the existing closed period is "a strong, effective protection measure and any changes proposed will need to be underpinned by a robust, credible case". It would be important to engage with the European Commission on any proposed changes, given the interest in the protection of wild birds generally and in the context of the implementation of the birds directive.
The Minister stated in a response to a parliamentary question I asked a number of weeks ago that officials in her Department have had informal discussions with the European Commission on only one occasion. As far as I am aware, the actual detail of the proposals have not even been presented at EU level. Sadly, but obviously not surprisingly, this seems to be a decision grounded in political rather than environmental or safety concerns. I find it laughable that this Government gives out about Trump when it comes to the environment. This Government's output with regard to the environment is extremely poor. With regard to the level of carbon output, this country is going to miss its targets and will be lumbered with millions of euro of fines in future. We are going to be one of two European states that will miss our objectives with regard to carbon reduction.
The Minister railroaded through a measure on Report Stage in the other House which provided for wholesale and ungovernable derogation to anyone purporting to cut hedges in the interest of public health and safety. That has been introduced by the Minister as a permanent change to section 40 of the Wildlife Act 1976. There is no mechanism to govern this and it is wide open to abuse.
The great irony of this is that it is not a heritage Bill. This does not serve to preserve our heritage. The Minister should be a guardian of our heritage and not the servant of lobbyists. Our hedgerows are a national asset and need to be treated as such.
In the so-called consultation two years ago, Ms Shirley Clerkin, the heritage officer of the Minister's own county council of Monaghan, stated:
An assessment of data and research with regard to which species will be impacted by any proposed changes is necessary before decisions are made, in addition to the impacts on the overall functioning of the hedgerow as a habitat and a wildlife corridor.
Science based research is required for Irish conditions including bud burst, individual species behaviour and breeding habits in relation to climatic conditions. Further research is required into percentage of birds having third broods. The bird nesting season is starting earlier each year and in recent years we are seeing an increase in the number of birds nesting outside of a closed period. There are already many exemptions to the current closed dates, and any move towards more exemptions or a blanket exemption for roadside hedges all year round could have a devastating impact on wildlife.
In the sections dealing with canals and Waterways Ireland, there is a failure to include the protection of natural heritage in the remit of the authority and a failure to allow it make by-laws to protect natural heritage or even to control invasive alien species. Again, we see that this Heritage Bill does little to protect our heritage.
The Minister must also take heed of the almost 30,000 concerned citizens who signed a petition demanding that this Bill be scrapped due to the very certain and devastating environmental impact it will have. To quote one of the submissions received from a member of the public, "Hedgerows represent one of the potentially greatest assets to an increasingly intensively managed countryside and we need to set national policies which recognise this and reward farmers for correct management."
In Meath, there are more than 22,000 km of hedgerows in the county, more than in most other Irish counties. Meath hedgerows are not only part of the ecological fabric of the county, but part of the history of our county. Some 80% of the hedgerows in our county can actually be seen on maps from 1840 and many of those hedgerows are much older than that. There are 36 species of trees and shrubs in the hedgerows in County Meath with hawthorn, elder and blackthorn the most commonly found. Other common hedgerow shrubs include gorse, wild privet, holly, willow, wych elm, and hazel.
The heritage officer for County Meath has said that there is "no scientific basis presented for a proposed revision to the dates of the closed period". She stated:
It is the opinion of Meath County Council that the current provisions of Section 40 of the Wildlife Act already allows for significant derogations for road safety concerns, agricultural, forestry, fisheries and construction activities. These dates are firmly established within the Local Authority work programme and are not presenting any major operational difficulties which would warrant a revision.
Burning is a huge issue, with many valid concerns on both sides. In the last number of months, we have witnessed huge-scale out-of-control wildfires destroying habitats, killing wildlife and significantly endangering people. According to the chief executive of Coillte, Mr. Fergal Leamy, the recovery costs from the large-scale blaze at the Cloosh forest alone is expected to reach €4 million. Controlled fire has obviously been used by Irish farmers for centuries. When correctly planned and applied, controlled burning techniques can produce beneficial results. While many farmers manage their land responsibly, it only takes one irresponsible, less than environmentally aware farmer to do huge damage. However, the blame for wildfires cannot be laid solely at the feet of farmers. Many are due to the irresponsible behaviour of the non-farming communities. Some of the practices are the practices of thugs who live nowhere near rural Ireland.
Many of the measures laid down by the Government are particularly unhelpful to farmers who wish to practise controlled burning. It is nearly impossible to adhere to the guidelines as set out by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine on controlled burning. One has to contact numerous different bodies and give a seven-day notice, which makes it nearly impossible for farmers to plan ahead given the unpredictability of Irish weather. There is a shocking statistic in this regard. Only one group applied for a controlled licence to burn last year. In the whole infrastructure of the State on this particular issue, which is taking the time of this Bill, only one group applied. That means that the Government practice as it stands is irrelevant as it is failing farmers miserably and failing the environment as well.
Our wildlife is suffering hugely as a result of uncontrolled upland burning - the charred habitats; the lifeless burnt bodies of sheep, lambs and other animals; and the destroyed nests and burnt eggs not to mention the impact on our blanket bogs and water supply. The problem of illegal burning is greater than what this legislation can provide for. I urge the Minister of State to get involved in co-ordination between the relevant Departments on this matter. The Departments responsible for this should be the Departments of Housing, Planning and Local Government; Agriculture, Food and Marine; and Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.
The nature of this debate is very worrying. In fact, it is only a veneer of a debate. On Report Stage in the Seanad, the Minister railroaded measures through that undid much of the good inter-party work that was done in amending the Bill to begin with. We are particularly concerned with section 7(1) of the Heritage Bill 2016, as concluded in the Seanad. It provides that the Minister may make regulations relating to land referred to in that section to allow the burning of vegetation during such period or periods during the month of March of such year in such part or parts of the State as specified in the regulations, subject to such conditions or restrictions specified in the regulations to ensure the protection of fauna or flora. This is hugely concerning because regardless of the ban on burning in section 40, the Minister can make regulations to specify when and where burning can be done in March. As these regulations will be done by statutory instrument, and they can be drawn as broadly as the Minister chooses, specifying that burning can take place any time in March in any place means that there is no guarantee or oversight from the Oireachtas on the type of restrictions and conditions the Minister has discretion to impose. This is effectively a blank cheque for burning.
These provisions are introduced for a two-year period initially pursuant to section 7(4)(a) but can be extended by the Oireachtas for three years and endlessly extended, pursuant to section 7(4)(b). At no time and in no place in the Bill does it require the collation of data or the evaluation of controlled areas to compare the effect of these resolutions or speak to how oversight of these provisions or assessment of them would be addressed by a very under-resourced National Parks and Wildlife Service. There are genuine concerns on all sides irrespective of the issue at hand but the current Bill's provisions and the approach to this Bill are not the way to resolve the complex issues underlying these issues.
In the long run, the Bill will not help farmers either. We need a new strategy for our uplands where farming is in decline instead of not under-researched, piecemeal measures that will ultimately do more harm than good.
