Wildlife (Amendment) Bill 2016: From the Seanad
Seanad amendments are proposed from the Chair. They are not moved by the Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Malcolm Noonan. The Minister of State is proposing that certain of the Seanad amendments be rejected and that certain amendments consequential on the rejection of the Seanad amendments be made instead. The Minister of State will move any amendments consequential on the rejection of the Seanad amendments. Let us get this show on the road.
Deputy Ó Broin is seeking clarification.
Yes, it is for those of who us have not engaged in this process before. A first additional list of amendments was provided originally, followed by a first substitute list of amendments. Will the Ceann Comhairle clarify the relationship between the substitute list and the cream list?
The lists should be viewed together. They were originally viewed as amendments to amendments, but the Minister of State is now tabling his own separate, free-standing, focused amendments. They are alternatives to what was originally proposed.
They are not textually amending the cream list but are stand-alone, separate amendments to replace others.
The text is the same as the text that appeared on the original list.
Seanad amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related. Amendment No. 1c is consequential on the rejection of Seanad amendments Nos. 1 and 2. Seanad amendment No. 1, amendment No. 1c and Seanad amendment No. 2 will be discussed together.
Seanad amendment No. 1:
Section 2: In page 3, lines 12 to 14, to delete all words from and including “Section” in line 12 down to and including line 14 and substitute the following:
“Section 16 of the Act of 2000 is amended—
(a) by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (1):
“(1) Where the Minister is of the opinion, having regard to subsection (6)(a), that any land forms, or is part of, a natural heritage area, or, is satisfied under section 18A(5)(a) that a natural heritage area order should be made, the Minister shall publish or cause to be published in Iris Oifigiúil, in a national newspaper, in at least one newspaper circulating in the locality in which the land is situate, and on the website of his or her Department, a notice in the prescribed form of the Minister’s intention to make an order designating the land as a natural heritage area.”;
(b) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (1):
“(1A) The Minister shall cause a copy of the notice published under subsection (1) to be sent to the Committee appointed by either House of the Oireachtas or jointly by both Houses of the Oireachtas to examine matters and make recommendations in relation to natural heritage.”.”.
First, I would like to outline some of the background to the Bill and the context around it at this point. The Bill has had a long and somewhat complex road to get to this point. The purpose of the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill 2016 is to give legal effect to the proposed reconfiguration of the raised bog natural heritage area network. This reconfiguration arises from a national study of our raised bog resource in 2014, called the Review of Raised Bog Natural Heritage Area Network.
The Bill also allows for a review of blanket bog natural heritage areas, puts the national biodiversity action plan on a statutory footing, and places a biodiversity duty on public bodies. The Bill was first presented on 21 July 2016. It completed all Stages in the Dáil and the Seanad, and has been returned to the Dáil for consideration of the various amendments made by the Seanad when the Bill lapsed with the dissolution of the 32nd Dáil on 14 January 2020. My Department has been working to refine some of the amendments passed by the Seanad. These are now ready, and the Bill was restored to the Houses of the Oireachtas last week.
The main objective of the 2014 raised bog natural heritage area network review was to look at how the network could contribute to our national conservation objectives for raised bog habitats, while minimising the impacts on the traditional rights of landowners and turf cutters, and minimising costs for the State. The reconfiguration of the network, which this Bill will facilitate, is based on sound scientific advice, and will have a positive impact on the network.
The Bill allows for the completion of the review. Decisions on designation or de-designation of natural heritage areas will not be made in a vacuum. There are principles and criteria in this Bill to guide the Minister in this process. The focus is on nature conservation and having a positive impact on the relevant network.
Sixteen amendments to the Bill were passed in the Seanad. These consisted of 11 Government amendments and five non-Government amendments. It is these 16 amendments and the Government's counter-amendments that we are considering tonight. There are no proposals to change eight of the 16 Seanad amendments. Technical or minor changes to three Government amendments are being proposed, and I am proposing changes to all five non-Government amendments. In keeping with the scope under Standing Orders to amend a Bill at this Stage, a minimal approach to any changes has been adopted.
In redrafting non-Government Seanad amendments, I have sought to reflect the general intention of the amendments insofar as possible. Overall, the views and additions proposed by the Seanad have been respected.
Finally, I want to put on record my thanks, and that of my Department, to the Ceann Comhairle's staff and particularly the Bills Office, which has assisted us on some very technical matters in relation to this Bill.
I thank the Minister of State. A number of us have been anxious to see this Bill restored to the Order Paper, so I thank the Minister of State and his team for ensuring that has happened.
I thank the Minister of State. My first set of questions are procedural, given that this Bill has been in gestation for such a long period of time, and given that many Members of the House are keen to have it concluded. It is also important for us to be very precise with regard to exactly what is being discussed, from which list is in front of us, and at which particular point in time.
I am looking at three pieces of paper. We have the cream list of amendments that were made in the Seanad. We then have the Minister of State's first additional list and his first substitute amendment list. I presume the Minister of State's initial comments relate to his proposal to reject amendments Nos. 1 and 2 from the Seanad cream list and that the subsequent amendments he is proposing as stand-alone amendments will replace those amendments. For clarity, does that mean the Minister of State's substitute list amendment No. 1c is in place of Seanad amendments Nos. 1 and 2?
Then I have two specific questions. Whenever I hear a Minister of State telling me he or she is remaining true to the spirit of the original amendment and that the alternative amendment is to clarify it and is technical in nature, there is just that little bit of me, that is, the sceptic, who wants some reassurance on the transference from the wording agreed by Senators, in their wisdom, to what the Minister of State is proposing. What is different? What has possibly been left out or added?
I am going to ask the Minister of State to tell me, in as plain English as is humanly possible given the technical nature of the amendment, to what extent is the wording here comparable to the Seanad wording. Is there anything in the drafting of that wording that, on advice from his officials, the Minister of State has decided to leave out? I know there was quite a lot of conversation in the Seanad on its amendment No. 2, which concerned issues of carbon sequestration, pollination, etc.
There is a real desire to make sure the Minister of State's wording captures all of that so that it is not just carbon sequestration through, not environmental types of projects but very specific kinds of environmental projects. Some additional clarity on that would be helpful.
Again, I am just trying to put these pieces of the jigsaw together. I might start with some general questions for the Minister of State to address now. A number of commitments were made in the Seanad to Senator Alice-Mary Higgins in regard to amendments she had proposed, so I will just go through some of them and ask, if I can, whether these are addressed in the current lists we have before us. She proposed to amend the definition of "environmental criteria" to ensure the inclusion of environmental conservation, geological and biodiversity provisions in section 16(6) of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act.
Let us not start ranging all over the legislation. We are focusing on amendments Nos. 1 and 2, and we will subsequently deal with the other business.
Is that amendments Nos. 1 and 2 from the Seanad to be replaced by amendment 1c?
We are not going to have a Second Stage debate on it.
Deputy Murphy can target his question at the two amendments we are dealing with.
Okay. The question is whether that is dealt with in these amendments. My second question is if anything has happened in relation to these two amendments. The then Minister of State, now Senator Seán Kyne, committed that departmental officials would liaise with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to see if a comparison made within the definition of "environmental criteria" in the Bill could be replaced with a consideration as proposed by the Senators. Is that dealt with here?
I thank Deputy Murphy. That is helpful.
Amendments Nos. 1, 1c and 2 are being taken together as they relate to one another. I will speak to these amendments together, if that is okay.
Amendment No. 1, as proposed by the Seanad, amends section 16 of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000. Section 16 sets out the statutory process for when a Minister intends to designate a natural heritage area.
Amendment No. 1 was a Government amendment in the Seanad. It was drafted in response to issues raised by the Opposition in the Seanad. The amendment simply sought to facilitate wider dissemination of a notice of the Minister's intention to make an order designating natural heritage areas. I am proposing to reject amendment No. 1 and replace it with amendment No. 1c to simply deal with referencing changes as a result of changes elsewhere in the Bill and to incorporate changes to Seanad amendment No. 2, which I will move on to discuss now.
Seanad amendment No. 2 also amends section 16 of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000 and was proposed in the Seanad on Report Stage and accepted by the Minister in the Seanad, subject to further checking. The effect of the amendment as proposed was that in deciding that a site is worthy of conservation, the Minister could propose a site for designation by virtue of its role in carbon sequestration or in respect of pollination. Section 16(6) of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000 already provides that the Minister may propose a site for designation as a natural heritage area, NHA, by virtue of its special scientific interest for one or more species, communities, habitats, landforms or geological or geomorphological features, or for its diversity of natural attributes. The proposed amendment would provide the Minister with additional criteria relating to carbon sequestration and pollination, in proposing to designate a site as an NHA in the future, in accordance with section 16 of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000. The amendment as proposed by the Seanad could be interpreted as meaning that these criteria could be considered in their own right, that is, as sole criteria. This could lead to sites being designated which may have very limited nature conservation value and this could divert the resources we have in this area away from core work on nature conservation and restoration.
It is considered that this would be better achieved by ensuring carbon sequestration and pollination are factors that must be considered when drawing together the scientific advice the Minister must have regard to when deciding whether to propose a site for designation as a natural heritage area. In this way, carbon sequestration and pollination would be considered as factors to be taken into account within the scientific advice available to the Minister alongside the birds directive and the habitats directive, as well as the size, location and features of the site and other factors. This is the thrust of the alternative amendment now proposed.
The relevant part of the subsection within section 16 of the Act would now read:
(b) The scientific advice referred to in paragraph (a) shall take account of, as appropriate, the size of the site, its location, the type of natural feature or features contained in it, its role in carbon sequestration or pollination, its importance for the purposes of the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive and the degree of negative, or potentially negative, human impact.
The proposed amendment achieves the thrust of the intention of the Seanad amendment but in a more appropriate manner.
Members should please note that the Government counter-amendment, amendment No. 1c, incorporates the response to Seanad amendment No. 2. It is, therefore, proposed to also reject Seanad amendment No. 2.
Question, "That Seanad amendment No. 1 be not agreed.", put and declared carried.
Disagreement with Seanad amendment reported.
Seanad amendment No. 2:
Section 2: In page 3, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
“(2) Section 16(6) of the Act of 2000 is amended by the insertion of “for its role in carbon sequestration, or in respect of pollination” after “features” where it firstly occurs.”.
I move:
That the Committee do not agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2 to the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill 2016.
Question, "That Seanad amendment No. 2 be not agreed.", put and declared carried.
Disagreement with Seanad amendment reported.
I move consequential amendment No. 1c:
Section 2: In page 3, lines 12 to 14, to delete all words from and including “Section” in line 12 down to and including line 14 and substitute the following:
“Section 16 of the Act of 2000 is amended—
(a) by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (1):
“(1) Where the Minister is of the opinion, having regard to subsection (6)(a), that any land forms, or is part of, a natural heritage area, or, is satisfied under section 18A(4)(a) that a natural heritage area order should be made, the Minister shall publish or cause to be published in Iris Oifigiúil, in a national newspaper, in at least one newspapercirculating in the locality in which the land is situate, and on the website of his or her Department, a notice in the prescribed form of the Minister’s intention to make an order designating the land as a natural heritage area.”,
(b) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (1):
“(1A) The Minister shall cause a copy of the notice published under subsection (1) to be sent to the Committee appointed by either House of the Oireachtas or jointly by both Houses of the Oireachtas to examine matters and make recommendations in relation to natural heritage.”,and
(c) in subsection (6)(b), by the insertion of “its role in carbon sequestration or pollination,” after “contained in it,”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendments Nos. 3, 3c and 4 to 11, inclusive, are related. Amendment No. 3c is consequential upon the rejection of Seanad amendment No. 3. Seanad amendments Nos. 3, 3c and 4 to 11 may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Seanad amendment No. 3:
Section 4: In page 4, to delete lines 5 to 11 and substitute the following:
“(b) contributing to the carbon sequestration potential of bog habitats and to actions, relevant to bog habitats, contained in a national plan or, as the case may be, plan for the island of Ireland for the time being concerning the reversal of pollinator decline;
(c) selecting the most suitable bog habitats—
(i) to be designated as natural heritage areas having regard to—
(I) all of the matters referred to in section 16(6),
(II) national, regional and local economic, social and cultural needs, and(III) recreational and sporting needs (including greenways) appropriate to bog habitats,
or
(ii) to cease to be designated as natural heritage areas having regard to—
(I) environmental criteria,
(II) restoration potential,
(III) national, regional and local economic, social and cultural needs, and
(IV) recreational and sporting needs (including greenways) appropriate to bog habitats.”.
I move:
That the Committee do not agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3 to the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill 2016.
Amendments Nos. 3, 3c and 4 to 11, inclusive, are grouped and I propose to talk through these together. The Bill amends the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000 by the insertion of a new section - section 18A - after section 18 of that Act. Section 18A sets out how the 2014 review is to be completed and the requirements for future reviews of blanket bog NHAs.
Seanad amendments Nos. 3 and 4 propose changes to the criteria to be utilised in selecting the most suitable bog habitats to be designated or to cease to be designated as natural heritage areas. The changes brought in additional criteria, including recreational and sporting needs and greenways. Amendment No. 4 also added further criteria in relation to facilities and projects which can be of significant benefit to a community. Having considered all of these matters, an amendment to section 18A is proposed which will strike a balance between the requests made in the Seanad and an appropriate selection process for nature conservation. It is considered that the specific references in the proposed Seanad amendment to recreational and sporting needs and greenways are not appropriate for inclusion in the Bill as they are considered too prescriptive.
It could be argued that Seanad amendment No. 4 be rejected entirely as the amendment itself is legally flawed. It would potentially make it more difficult to de-designate NHAs when the opposite effect was intended in the amendment. The proposed counter-amendment, amendment No. 3c, is a compromise. It retains most of Seanad amendment No. 3 and captures as much as possible of the intention behind Seanad amendment No. 4 in that it would include facilities and projects which can be of significant benefit to a community or to strategic infrastructure development.
I believe this amendment strikes a better balance between the various issues raised during the Seanad phases and the central role of the Minister in conserving nature. As I have set out, Seanad amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are interlinked. The amendment to Seanad amendment No. 3 has been drafted so that it also incorporates the replacement wording for Seanad amendment No. 4. Therefore, it is proposed to reject Seanad amendments Nos. 3 and 4, and to replace these with amendment No. 3c.
Amendment No. 5 is a relatively minor amendment proposed in the Seanad by the Government and passed there. This was brought forward on Report Stage in the Seanad. It provides that when the Minister makes an order to de-designate all or part of a site as a natural heritage area, the Minister will, to inform the public of the making of the order, publish or cause to be published a notice of the making of the order in Iris Oifigiúil, in a national newspaper, and in at least one newspaper circulating in the locality in which the land to which the order applies is situated and on the Minister's departmental website. The amendment provides for wider dissemination than the Bill originally provided for of notice of the making of an order to amend or revoke a natural heritage area order to de-designate all or part of a site as a natural heritage area.
The Bill already provides that a copy of the order will be sent to various Ministers, public bodies, defined owners or occupiers of land and defined holders of prospecting or exploration licences.
Seanad amendment No. 6 is a minor amendment that seeks to ensure the relevant Oireachtas committee is informed of any dedesignation orders made under the legislation.
Seanad amendments Nos. 7 to 10, inclusive, are minor technical amendments that simply renumber paragraphs. They are all consequential on Seanad amendment No. 6.
Seanad amendment No. 11 was introduced by the Government in the Seanad in response to the early part of the debate there. A definition of "greenway" was required at that point because an earlier proposed amendment, Seanad amendment No. 3, included the possibility of allowing NHAs to be considered for dedesignation on the basis, in part, of greenways being provided. However, with the
evolution of the Bill, the term "greenway" is no longer contained in the Bill and, therefore, this definition is not required. It should be noted that the Bill still allows for dedesignations to be considered on the basis of national, regional and local economic, social and cultural needs and other criteria set down in the Bill. It is proposed to reject this Seanad amendment.
I have a specific question about paragraph d(i)(III), to be inserted by Seanad amendment No. 3c, which refers to "facilities and projects which can be of significant benefit to a community". It would be useful if the Minister of State would elaborate on exactly what kinds of projects are covered by that phrase. It could be quite broad. One of the concerns would be whether it could, for example, include a golf course that may meet that criterion but would not, as I am sure he would agree, be appropriate from a nature conservation perspective. Could he provision include that kind of games facility, including a sterile area of a sports pitch, etc., or is there something more specific in mind?
Unless I am misreading it, in which case the Minister of State will correct me, the proposed amendment does not deal with the main problem, which is that there is potential for the dedesignation of a large number of NHAs and allowing peat mining to take place. There is explicit reference in respect of dedesignation to national, regional and local economic needs. This means economic needs could be a reason to abandon our commitment to tackle the biodiversity crisis. That is my understanding. The amendments are as bad as each other as far as I can see in terms of what came from Seanad and what is now being proposed. There is no qualitative difference between them. How does what is proposed chime or marry with the Government's rhetorical commitment to protecting biodiversity? The Minister of State was delayed in going to Montreal because of a Dáil motion. There was a big deal made of that. He went over there and committed to high-level targets and so on protecting 30% of land and sea by 2030. That is great but he then comes back here and is in favour of a Bill that has the potential to lead to dedesignation and less protection for our bogs, which are vital in protecting biodiversity.
I ask the Minister of State to clarify subsections d(i)(II) and d(i)(III) as inserted by amendment No. 3c. The terms used are very wide. The reference to "national, regional and local economic, social and cultural needs" covers almost everything. Who in a community decides which facilities and projects "can be of significant benefit to a community"? My neighbour and I might have different views on what would be of significant benefit to our community. How will these matters be decided? How is the Minister of State satisfied with those very wide-ranging criteria? As I said, does "national, regional and local economic, social and cultural needs" not cover almost everything? What does it mean to have wording that covers nearly everything? Moreover, my interpretation of what meets a local economic, social or cultural need could be different from that of my neighbour. We get on well but we have very different views on these things. How are we to understand that provision in the legislation? Economic, social and cultural needs encompasses virtually everything. What does it mean?
The Minister of State needs to be a bit Jesuitical about this.
Perhaps I do. The Government amendments seeks to respect the decision that was made in the Seanad. We moved out the prescriptive element of specifying greenways or golf courses. It was already in amendment No. 4 and that was rejected.
Regarding the NHA review, we will have to look at all criteria. The Deputies referred to the provision regarding "national, regional and local economic, social and cultural needs" and other criteria. These considerations will have to be balanced against other criteria such as restoration potential and the environmental criteria. The position of greenways or golf courses could be considered as a factor in dedesignation on a case-by-case basis but these other factors and objectives would have to be weighed up. It would still have to go through the normal regulatory and planning process. We tried to respect the decision that was made in the Seanad by leaving that broad approach and without being prescriptive but also noting that any proposal to dedesignate would have to go through a very rigorous process.
Deputy Murphy asked about dedesignation generally. What we are achieving from this is a greater area of high nature value peatlands protection across a much wider geographic range. We are achieving better outcomes for our objectives. The NHA review has been a really comprehensive assessment. On he basis of the review, we weighed up environmental restoration potential, social and economic factors and took a detailed assessment of 270 raised bogs, 75 raised bog NHAs and 110 undesignated sites. Sites that continue to be designated were identified as well as those for dedesignation. Our efforts were focused on achieving the best quality in terms of category one, that is, restoration potential. We have achieved that. From that process, we have ended up with a higher proportion of designated land, higher land area, better-quality outcomes and reduced need for the intervention of the turf cutting scheme, whereby some 3,000 turbary rights are being reduced to approximately 500. There is a reduced cost on the State and a better environmental outcome as well.
I will try to be generous in my response. The Minister of State cannot say he is respecting the intention of the Seanad amendment when he is removing a fundamental element of that amendment by attempting explicitly to exclude greenways and golf courses, for example, from the provisions. On that basis, I do not support amendment No. 3c.
Question, "That Seanad amendment No. 3 be not agreed.", put and declared carried.
Disagreement with Seanad amendment reported.
I move consequential amendment No. 3c:
Section 4: In page 4, to delete lines 5 to 11 and substitute the following:
"(b) contributing to the carbon sequestration potential of bog habitats;
(c) contributing to actions, relevant to bog habitats, contained in a national plan or a plan for the island of Ireland, concerning the reversal of pollinator decline;
(d) selecting the most suitable bog habitats—
(i) to be designated as natural heritage areas having regard to—
(I) all of the matters to which the Minister is required to have regard under section 16(6),
(II) national, regional and local economic, social and cultural needs,
(III) facilities and projects which can be of significant benefit to a community, and
(IV) projects which relate to strategic infrastructure development, within the meaning of the Planning and Development Act 2000,
or
(ii) to cease to be designated as natural heritage areas having regard to—
(I) environmental criteria,
(II) restoration potential,
(III) national, regional and local economic, social and cultural needs,
(IV) facilities and projects which can be of significant benefit to a community, and
(V) projects which relate to strategic infrastructure development, within the meaning of the Planning and Development Act 2000.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move:
That the Committee do not agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 4 to the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill 2016.
Question, "That Seanad amendment No. 4 be not agreed.", put and declared carried.
Disagreement with Seanad amendment reported.
Seanad amendment No. 5:
Section 4: In page 4, to delete lines 37 to 39 and substitute the following:
"(a) inform the public of the making of the order by publishing or causing to be published a notice of the making of the order in Iris Oifigiúil, in a national newspaper, in at least one newspaper circulating in the locality in which the land to which the order applies is situate and on the website of his or her Department, and"
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 6:
Section 4: In page 5, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:
"(vi) the Committee appointed by either House of the Oireachtas or jointly by both Houses of the Oireachtas to examine matters and make recommendations in relation to natural heritage,".
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 7:
Section 4: In page 5, line 9, to delete "(vi) the Commissioners" and substitute "(vii) the Commissioners".
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 8:
Section 4: In page 5, line 10, to delete "(vii) any planning" and substitute "(viii) any planning".
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 9:
Section 4: In page 5, line 12, to delete "(viii) an Bord" and substitute "(ix) an Bord".
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 10:
Section 4: In page 5, line 13, to delete "(ix) the Environmental" and substitute "(x) the Environmental".
Seanad amendment agreed to.
I move:
That the Committee do not agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 11 to the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill 2016.
Question put and agreed to.
Disagreement with Seanad amendment reported.
Seanad amendments Nos. 12 and 16 are related and may be taken together.
Seanad amendment No. 12:
Section 5: In page 6, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
"Part VA of Act of 2000
5. The Act of 2000 is amended by the insertion of the following Part after Part V:
"Part VA
BIODIVERSITY
Definitions
59A. In this Part—
‘Agreement’ means the Agreement between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland establishing Implementation Bodies done at Dublin on 8 March 1999;
‘biodiversity’ means the variability among living organisms from all sources including terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part and includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems;
‘guidelines’ means the guidelines referred to in section 59B(1)(c) and ‘guidelines’, in relation to a plan, programme or strategy or a National Biodiversity Action Plan, means any guidelines the Minister may prepare and publish concerning that plan, programme or strategy or National Biodiversity Action Plan;
‘National Biodiversity Action Plan’ means a plan, prepared by the Minister and approved by the Government prior to its publication under section 59C(4), which contains the objectives and targets for the
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity;
‘plan, programme or strategy’ means a plan, programme or strategy concerning the promotion of the conservation of biodiversity or an amendment of it, or part of a plan, programme or strategy concerning that promotion or an amendment of that part, that may be prepared by the Minister as he or she considers appropriate and approved by the Government prior to its publication under section 59C(1) but does not include a National Biodiversity Action Plan;
‘public body’ means a public body specified in section 59H(1) or prescribed in accordance with section 59H(2);
‘relevant Minister’ means, in relation to a public body, the Minister of the Government who performs functions in connection with that body.
Biodiversity
59B. (1) To the extent that it may affect or relate to the functions of a public body, the public body shall, in the performance of its functions, have regard to—
(a) a plan, programme or strategy,
(b) the objectives and targets in a National Biodiversity Action Plan,
and
(c) guidelines that may be prepared by the Minister, where he or she considers it appropriate, providing practical guidance to the public body in relation to a plan, programme or strategy or meeting the objectives and targets of a National Biodiversity Action Plan.
(2) A requirement under subsection (1) shall apply in respect of, as the case may be, a plan, programme or strategy, National Biodiversity Action Plan or guidelines or an amendment of any of them, on and from the date of the publication of a notice under section 59C(5) concerning the plan, programme or strategy, National Biodiversity Action Plan or guidelines or an amendment of any of them.
Publication of plan, programme or strategy, National Biodiversity Action Plan and guidelines
59C. (1) The Minister may publish a plan, programme or strategy and guidelines on the website of his or her Department and by any other means (if any) as he or she considers appropriate.
(2) Not later than 36 months after the coming into operation of section 59B, the Minister shall prepare and publish a National Biodiversity Action Plan and guidelines.
(3) Not earlier than every third anniversary of the publication of a National Biodiversity Action Plan and guidelines under subsection (2), and not later than every fifth anniversary of that publication, the Minister shall prepare and publish a National Biodiversity Action Plan and guidelines.
(4) For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3), the Minister shall publish a National Biodiversity Action Plan and guidelines on the website of his or her Department and by other means (if any) as he or she
considers appropriate.
(5) Not later than 4 weeks after the publication under subsection (1) or subsection (4), the Minister shall publish a notice in Iris Oifigiúil, in a national daily newspaper circulating in the State and on the website of his or her Department, of that publication and the date on which it occurred.
(6) Nothing in subsection (2) or subsection (3) shall prevent the Minister from amending a National Biodiversity Action Plan and guidelines once it or they has or have been published, and subsections (4) and (5) shall apply, with any necessary modifications, to the publication of those amendments.
Consultation
59D. (1) The Minister may consult as he or she considers appropriate with public bodies and the public during the preparation of a plan, programme or strategy, National Biodiversity Action Plan or guidelines or an amendment of any of them.
(2) The Minister shall consider any observations or submissions received during consultations under subsection (1) before completing the preparation of a plan, programme or strategy, National Biodiversity
Action Plan or guidelines or an amendment of any of them.
Notice
59E. At least 8 weeks before he or she publishes a plan, programme or strategy and guidelines under section 59C(1) or a National Biodiversity Action Plan and guidelines under section 59C(4), the Minister shall give notice in writing to public bodies of his or her intention to so publish.
Report by public bodies
59F. (1) A public body shall prepare and submit a report to the Minister.
(2) The first report under subsection (1) shall be prepared and submitted to the Minister not later than 18 months after the date the Minister publishes a plan, programme or strategy and guidelines under section 59C(1) or a National Biodiversity Action Plan and guidelines under section 59C(4), and every report thereafter shall be prepared and submitted to the Minister not more frequently than once every 12
months.
(3) A report under subsection (1) shall specify—
(a) measures adopted by the public body for the purpose of compliance with section 59B(1), and
(b) progress made by the public body in the performance of its functions in accordance with that subsection.
(4) The first report under subsection (1) of a public body prescribed under section 59H(2) shall be prepared and submitted to the Minister not later than 18 months after the date, following that prescribing, that the Minister publishes a plan, programme or strategy and guidelines under section 59C(1) or a National Biodiversity Action Plan and guidelines under section 59C(4).
Direction
59G. (1) The Minister, in relation to the performance by a public body of its functions and having consulted—
(a) the public body, and
(b) where the public body was established by the Agreement, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, may give a direction in writing to the public body requiring it to adopt such measures for the purpose of compliance with section 59B(1) as are specified in the direction.
(2) The Minister shall consult, and agree the terms of the direction with, the relevant Minister before giving a direction under subsection (1).
(3) The Minister, having consulted the public body and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, as the case may be, under subsection (1) and having consulted and agreed with the relevant Minister under subsection (2), may by direction in writing amend or revoke a direction under this section (including a direction under this subsection).
(4) The public body to whom a direction is given under this section shall comply with the direction
Public body
59H. (1) For the purposes of this Part each of the following is a public body:
(a) a Minister of the Government;
(b) Bord Iascaigh Mhara;
(c) Bord Na Móna;
(d) An Bord Pleanála;
(e) Coillte Teoranta (being a company formed and registered under the Companies Acts as provided for by section 9 of the Forestry Act 1988);
(f) Commission for Aviation Regulation;
(g) Commission for Communications Regulation;
(h) Commission for Railway Regulation;
(i) Commission for Regulation of Utilities;
(j) Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland;
(k) a company formed in respect of a harbour in accordance with section 7 of the Harbours Act 1996;
(l) Eirgrid;
(m) Electricity Supply Board;
(n) Enterprise Ireland;
(o) the Environmental Protection Agency;
(p) Ervia;
(q) Geological Survey Ireland;
(r) Heritage Council;
(s) Iarnród Éireann-Irish Rail;
(t) Industrial Development Agency (Ireland);
(u) Inland Fisheries Ireland;
(v) Irish Lights Commission;
(w) a local authority within the meaning of section 2 of the Local Government Act 2001;
(x) Marine Institute;
(y) National Roads Authority;
(z) Office of the Revenue Commissioners;
(aa) a planning authority within the meaning of the Planning and Development Act 2000;
(bb) Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority;
(cc) Teagasc- The Agriculture and Food Development Authority;
(dd) Údarás na Gaeltachta.
(2) The Minister may, for the purposes of this Part, prescribe a body, other person, company, organisation or group referred to in subsection (3) to be a public body where the Minister is of the opinion that the body, other person, company, organisation or group has functions that have or may have a bearing on matters concerning biodiversity or is in a position to promote the conservation of biodiversity.
(3) The following may be prescribed under subsection (2):
(a) a body or other person established—
(i) by or under an enactment (other than the Companies Act 2014 or a former enactment relating to companies within the meaning of section 5 of that Act) or charter,
(ii) by any scheme administered by a Minister of the Government,
or
(iii) under the Companies Act 2014 (or a former enactment relating to companies within the meaning of section 5 of that Act) in pursuance of powers conferred by or under another enactment, and financed wholly or partly, whether directly or indirectly, by means of money provided, or loans made or guaranteed, by a Minister of the Government or the issue of shares held by or on behalf of a Minister of the Government;
(b) a company (formed and registered under the Companies Act 2014 or an existing company within the meaning of that Act), a majority of the shares in which are held by or on behalf of a Minister of the Government;
(c) a body, other person, organisation or group established by the Agreement.
(4) The Minister shall, before prescribing a body, other person, company, organisation or group to be a public body under subsection (2)—
(a) obtain the consent of the relevant Minister,
(b) consult the body, other person, company, organisation or group, and
(c) where the body, other person, organisation or group was established by the Agreement, consult the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade.".".
This is a Government amendment to put Ireland's national biodiversity plans on a statutory footing and create a public duty in respect of biodiversity for public bodies.
The amendment introduces a new Part to the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000 and new sections 59A to 59H. The proposal to introduce such an amendment was approved by the
Seanad without a vote. Under the amendment, the Minister will be required to publish a national biodiversity action plan and guidelines every three to five years. The legislation proposes that every public body, as listed in the proposed amendment, will be obliged, in the performance of its functions, to have regard to a plan, programme or strategy; the objectives and targets in a national biodiversity action plan; and practical guidelines from the Minister in relation to a plan, programme or strategy relating to biodiversity. Every listed public body will be required to prepare and submit to the Minister a report specifying the measures that the public body has adopted for the purposes of compliance by that public body with the obligation, and the progress made by the public body in the performance of its functions in respect of the obligation. In addition, a listed public body must comply with a direction given by the Minister in respect of these matters.
Amendment No. 16 is a technical amendment to the Long Title of the Bill to reflect the fact that the Bill deals with issues concerning biodiversity. It arises from amendment No. 12 made by the Seanad.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 13 and amendment No. 13c are related. Amendment No. 13c is consequential on the rejection of Seanad amendment No. 13. Seanad amendment No. 13 and amendment No. 13c will be discussed together.
Seanad amendment No. 13:
Section 5: In page 6, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
"Report on exercise of turbary rights
5. The Minister for Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht shall, within twelve months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas containing guidelines and recommended thresholds in relation to the exercise of turbary rights including a definition, or definitions, of "household use".".
Seanad amendment No. 13 is an Opposition amendment from the Seanad. The Bill, as passed by the Seanad, contained a new section as a result of amendment No. 13. This new section provides that the Minister will, within 12 months of the passing of the Bill, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas containing guidelines and recommended thresholds in relation to the exercise of turbary rights including a definition, or definitions, of "household use".
The intention behind this amendment, I understand, was to draw a distinction between commercial turf harvesting and turf extracted for household use. The then Minister indicated that he would accept the amendment subject to further consideration. I accept the general thrust of this amendment but some changes are required. It is proposed under counter amendment 13c to amend this amendment to provide that within 12 months of the coming into operation of section 5, the Minister will prepare a report on the average amount of turf required by an individual on an annual basis for the purpose of household use. This change is based on legal advice to reflect household use rather than the exercise of turbary rights, which can be wider than household
use, for example, if exercising turbary rights over someone else's land.
The report to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas would be on the average amount of turf required by an individual on an annual basis for the purpose of household use rather than containing guidelines and recommended thresholds in relation to the exercise of turbary rights. This report will help to inform policy and approach to the cutting of turf for household use.
If I understand this right, the Minister of State is removing the requirement of the Seanad amendment to have a definition of "household use". He is replacing it with a requirement to have a report that will be laid before the House. However, there is no action consequent on the completion on the report and its being laid before the House. What is the purpose then of the report? Is it that the Government may at that stage come back with an amendment to the legislation based on usage rather than a definition, as the Seanad amendment requires, of "household use" or is it just for the purposes of information? I am clear why the Minister of State is opposing the Seanad amendment but I am not clear on what he is intending to do with the report and its findings after the 12-month or 15-month period.
Will the Minister of State clarify that point? It is a significant difference. I heard the rationale that the Minister of State gave. He said there is a difference between individual household use and what may otherwise be collected. However, the outcome of the wording is different because it seems this is just an exercise in collecting data. What happens then? What happens as a result? What actions will the Minister of State or the Government be taking after the report has been laid and an estimate has been made of average household use? What happens then? Is that not a weakness in the wording proposed by the Minister of State compared to the wording of the Seanad amendment?
Domestic turf-cutting can continue in sites outside the reconfigured protected natural heritage area, NHA, network with no requirement for ministerial consent, subject to normal thresholds. We are trying to establish these thresholds. It is useful for enforcement but it is also useful for policy. The report on the turf required for a household will give us a general indication of what an individual household would require on an annual basis where domestic turf-cutting can continue.
That would, I presume, be measured in tonnage.
That is a good point. I imagine so.
Seanad amendment not agreed.
I move consequential amendment No. 13c:
In page 6, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
Report on household use of turf
5. (a) Within 12 months of the coming into operation of this section, the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage shall prepare a report on the average amount of turf required by an individual on an annual basis for the purpose of household use.
(b) The Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage shall, as soon as practicable but not later than 3 months after the report referred to in paragraph (a) is prepared, lay a copy of that report before each House of the Oireachtas.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 14 and amendments Nos. 14c1 to 14c15, inclusive, are related. Amendments Nos. 14c1 to 14c15 are consequential on the rejection of Seanad amendment No. 14. Seanad amendment No. 14 and amendments Nos. 14c1 to 14c15, inclusive, will be discussed together.
Seanad amendment No. 14:
Section 5: In page 6, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
"5. Before an order can be made under section 18A(5)(b) of the Act of 2000 a report shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas on current condition, restoration potential and re-wetting potential, matters referred to in section 16(6) of the Act of 2000 and other such factors as the Minister may deem necessary of all blanket bog natural heritage areas.”.
I move:
That the Committee do not agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 14 to the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill 2016.
This amendment, as proposed by the Seanad, provides that before an order can be made de-designating an NHA, a report shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas on current condition, restoration potential and re-wetting potential, the special scientific interest of sites and other such factors as the Minister may deem necessary of all blanket bog NHAs. This amendment was accepted in the Seanad subject to further consideration.
The amendment has now been considered and the wording, as presented, has been found to be problematic for a number of reasons, including preventing the de-designation of any NHA before a review of all blanket bogs NHAs was completed. Therefore, the proposed reconfiguration of the raised bog NHA network under the 2014 review of raised bog NHA network could not be completed for a further number of years. That provision would therefore undermine the original central purpose of the Bill and is unacceptable.
It is therefore proposed to reject Seanad amendment No. 14. However, I agree with the central intention of the Seanad amendment. On that basis, an alternative amendment is proposed which captures the overall intention of the amendment passed in the Seanad but does not hold up the completion of the 2014 review. The replacement amendment would ensure that no de-designation of a blanket bog NHA could occur before a wide review of blanket bogs across the country is completed.
As a consequence of this amendment, several further amendments are required. These mostly deal with renumbering. However, one consequential amendment is significant. This amendment requires the deletion of section 18A(2) in section 4 of the Bill. If the subsection were to remain, a wide review of blanket bog NHAs, in accordance with section 18A(1), could not be undertaken. It would prevent a wider review of blanket bog habitats necessary to fulfil the conservation objective for blanket bog habitat as section 18A(2) currently restricts a review under section 18A(1) to only those NHAs that have a natural heritage area order in force on the date of the commencement of this section.
In the same manner, if section 18A(2) remains, it may not be possible to continue with the 2014 review as this review includes many non-designated NHAs. Removing section 18A(2) thus removes several contradictions in the Bill and this is critical to the implementation of the Act when passed.
I have a straightforward question. If I have it right, one of the differences between the Minister of State's amendment and Seanad amendment No. 14 is the removal of the following words, "restoration potential and re-wetting potential". I would like the Minister of State to explain why that wording has not been translated across to his own amendment.
I, likewise, would like to know why those key words, "restoration potential and re-wetting potential" do not seem to have been translated over. The Minister of State gave his rationale for the changes but he did not explain that. In the context of where we are as a country with regard to our biodiversity and climate challenges, surely that wording is significant and important. For example, on page 235 of the climate action plan, which was published only last year, there is a commitment to restoring and rewetting natural heritage areas. The Irish Wildlife Trust has said that it is appalled by these changes and the proposed removal of legal protections. It is asking how the Government can be proceeding to remove these protections when exactly the opposite is needed. Why is that key wording, which is significant in terms of what we need to be doing, not included in the Minister of State's amendments?
Restoration potential is already catered for in the Bill. Restoration potential is the same as rewetting. Restoration is achieved through rewetting. We see that with the nature restoration regulation, which refers to rewetting, but it is one of the measures as part of restoration. It is already there. If anything, the concerns of the Irish Wildlife Trust to which Deputy Cian O'Callaghan referred are unfounded. What we are achieving with this will give effect to considering the potential in the review of the restoration of blanket bog habitats right across the country.
The Minister of State is proposing that Seanad amendment No. 14 be rejected.
Question, "That Seanad amendment No. 14 be not agreed.", put and declared carried.
Disagreement with Seanad amendment reported.
I move consequential amendment No. 14c1:
Section 5: In page 3, line 24, to insert “subject to subsection (5),” before “may conduct”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move consequential amendment No. 14c2:
Section 5: In page 3, to delete lines 27 to 29.
Amendment agreed to.
I move consequential amendment No. 14c3:
Section 5: In page 4, line 1 to delete “(3) The purposes” and substitute “(2) The purposes”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move consequential amendment No. 14c4:
Section 5: In page 4, line 12 to delete “(4) The Minister” and substitute “(3) The Minister”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move consequential amendment No. 14c5:
Section 5: In page 4, line 21 to delete “(5) Having,” and substitute “(4) Having,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move consequential amendment No. 14c6:
Section 5: In page 4, line 24, to delete “subsection (4)(a)” and substitute “subsection (3)(a)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move consequential amendment No. 14c7:
Section 5: In page 4, line 26, to delete “subsection (4)(b)” and substitute “subsection (3)(b)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move consequential amendment No. 14c8:
Section 5: In page 4, between lines 34 and 35 to insert the following:
“(5) (a) Subject to subsection (6), before the Minister makes an order under subsection (4)(b) relating to a natural heritage area containing a blanket bog habitat, he or she shall, for the purposes referred to in subsection (2), conduct a review of blanket bog habitats.
(b) The review conducted under paragraph (a) shall include designated blanket bog natural heritage areas and other blanket bog natural heritage areas as the Minister considers necessary.
(6) Subsection (5) shall not apply to a natural heritage area, whether or not a designated natural heritage area, falling to be reviewed under the review referred to in subsection (1)(a).”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move consequential amendment No. 14c9:
Section 5: In page 4, line 35, to delete “(6) Where” and substitute “(7) Where”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move consequential amendment No. 14c10:
Section 5: In page 4, line 35, to delete “subsection (5)(b)” and substitute “subsection (4)(b)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move consequential amendment No. 14c11:
Section 5: In page 5, line 14, to delete “(7) Section 19(2)” and substitute “(8) Section 19(2)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move consequential amendment No. 14c12:
Section 5: In page 5, line 18, to delete “subsection (5)(b)” and substitute “subsection (4)(b)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move consequential amendment No. 14c13:
Section 5: In page 5, line 19, to delete “(8) In this section—” and substitute “(9) In this section—”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move consequential amendment No. 14c14:
Section 5: In page 5, line 22, to delete “subsection (5)(a)” and substitute “subsection (4)(a)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move consequential amendment No. 14c15:
Section 5: In page 5, line 23, to delete “subsection (5)(b)” and substitute “subsection (4)(b)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 15 and amendments Nos. 15c1 and 15c2 are related. Amendments Nos. 15c1 and 15c2 are consequential on the rejection of Seanad amendment No. 15. Seanad amendment No. 15 and amendments Nos. 15c1 and 15c2 will be discussed together.
Seanad amendment No. 15:
In section 5: In page 6, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
"5. Where a comparison is made between raised bogs or blanket bogs in regard to environmental criteria that comparison shall not be made with a special area of conservation.".
I move:
That the Committee do not agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 15 to the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill 2016 .
Amendments Nos. 15c1 and 15c2 are minor redrafts to better reflect the intention behind an Opposition amendment accepted and passed in the Seanad. Under the draft Bill, one of the factors to assess whether or not to de-designate a natural heritage area, NHA, is environmental criteria. The latter are defined in the Bill as meaning the conservation value of a bog, taking into account the area, range, habitat, structure, function and ecological features of the bog when compared to those of one or more than one other bog.
Amendment No. 15 from the Seanad cream list provided that where a comparison is made between raised bogs or blanket bogs in regard to environmental criteria, comparison shall not be made with a special area of conservation. The concern was that this criteria could give rise to many unnecessary de-designations if bogs were compared with some of the best examples of bogs around the country. In particular, Senators wanted to ensure that a Minister could not de-designate a bog on the basis of a comparison with a special area of conservation. This would not be the intention. As part of the 2014 natural heritage area review, special areas of conservation were included in the assessment of Ireland's raised bog resource. The special area of conservation sites were not used as comparators to justify the proposed de-designation of natural heritage areas and it is envisaged that they would not be used in the future for that purpose. In order to allay concerns expressed by Senators, it is proposed to amend the definition of "environmental criteria" set out in the Bill to explicitly provide that comparisons cannot be made with bogs situated in special areas of conservation.
Question, "That Seanad amendment No. 15 be not agreed", put and declared carried.
Disagreement with Seanad amendment reported.
I move consequential amendment No. 15c1:
In page 5, line 33 to insert “that is not or are not situated in a candidate special area of conservation or a special area of conservation” after “bog”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move consequential amendment No. 15c2:
In page 5, line 38 to insert “that is not or are not situated in a candidate special area of conservation or a special area of conservation” after “bog”.
Amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 16:
Title: In page 3, line 6, after “orders;” to insert “to provide for arrangements concerning biodiversity;”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendments reported.
The following is reported to the House:
- agreement to Seanad amendments Nos. 5 to 10, inclusive, 12 and 16 and
- rejection of Seanad amendments Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, 11 and 13 to 15, inclusive, and agreement to amendments made to the Bill consequential on the rejections of Seanad amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, and 13 to 15, inclusive.
A message will be sent to Seanad Éireann acquainting it that:
(1) Dáil Éireann has agreed to amendments Nos. 5 to 10, inclusive, 12 and 16 made by Seanad Éireann to the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill 2016; and
(2) Dáil Éireann has not agreed to Seanad amendments Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, 11 and 13 to 15, inclusive, and desires that Seanad Éireann should not insist thereon; and Dáil Éireann has made amendments to the Bill consequential on the rejection of Seanad amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, and 13 to 15, inclusive, to which the agreement of Seanad Éireann is desired in each case.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
For the information of the House, in addition to what we have done by means of the amendments that have been agreed, it will be necessary to change the title of the Minister as it appears in the Bill. This can only happen by means of legislation introduced at a later date. The wording used in the Bill is "the Minister for Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht". This reflects the historic title of the Minister with responsibility for heritage. Since the Bill was last before the Dáil, however, the title of that Minister has changed and the function for heritage has been transferred to the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage. Under Oireachtas rules for a Bill at this Stage, the title cannot be changed by amendment or by clerk's correction. The proposal is to pass the Bill, as it currently stands, and to amend it via legislation to be introduced at a later date. The amendment would change the title of the Minister from "Minister for Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht" to "Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage" in the Bill and remove altogether a reference to the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle for his patience with us and I thank all of the Deputies for their co-operation.
I thank the Minister of State and his team and all the Deputies who have taken part.
