Vol. 531 No. 1
13 Mr. U. Burke asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage Gaeltacht and the Islands if she will consider a review of the most restrictive elements of the Habitats Directive, including legislation, ministerial order or instrument, to change the directive as it is increasingly evident that there are many difficulties for many property owners which have arisen since its introduction. [4906/01]
I advise the Deputy that an EU directive may not be altered by ministerial order, national legislation or statutory instrument. Amendments to the Habitats Directive require a decision by the Council of Ministers, or in some cases, a co-decision of the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.
The Deputy should appreciate that not alone is amendment of the Habitats Directive outside my competence, but any attempt on my part to promote an amendment perceived to weaken what the Deputy might consider the "restrictive elements" of the directive, will not be successful at a European level.
I dtosach ba mhaith liom cuidiú leis an méid atá ráite ar an dtaobh seo den Dáil as ucht Mary Coughlan a bheith tofa mar Aire Stáit. Go n-éirí an bóthar léi as seo amach.
I am disappointed with the Minister's reply because we all know that the Habitats Directive has a detrimental impact on the livelihoods of rural people. It is regrettable that there is no mechanism other than what the Minister has referred to. She states that she is not prepared to undertake this. It is a matter of recognising the need to curtail this unintended impact of the directive. The representative of the Commission who attended the meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs expressed alarm at the directive's impact. The Minister must do what is necessary to amend it. Is the Minister aware of the impact it has on the livelihood of rural people, the curtailments it imposes? These people were the guardians of the environment before this directive was adopted. They, without any directive, conserved and protected the species in question.
I agree with the Deputy. In Opposition and in Government, I said the landowners and users have been the guardians of the environment. That must be recognised.
I am surprised the Deputy was disappointed with my reply. As he should know – because he was a Deputy at the time – the European Communities National Habitats Regulations, 1997, which transposed the directive into domestic law, were introduced under the previous Administration in March 1997. Given the legal situation, once transposed into domestic law, it cannot be changed by way of a ministerial order, legislation or statutory instrument. I share the Deputy's disappointment that the directive was accepted.
In government and opposition I have expressed the great difficulties that can be experienced by landowners. I was presented with a fait accompli when I came into office. I considered what could be done to mitigate those difficulties in terms of SACs, the appeals board, the liaison committees and compensation. That is, unfortunately, the situation on the Habitats Directive, of which I am not a great advocate. The Deputy may be aware of certain statements I made about EU directives relatively recently.
I remember what the Minister said, but she said it outside the State. She has difficulty saying it in the State.
I said it in the State too.
However, that is another day's work. Does the Minister agree that a charge on a property is acceptable? Is it constitutionally correct that a charge can be put on a property as a result of directives?
I do not understand the Deputy's reference to a charge on property. The consti tutionality of directives and laws was considered at the appropriate time in terms of the responsibility of the Attorney General and his office. It is not a case of it being unconstitutional. If that was the case, it would have been considered and challenged before now. The point is that this is a fait accompli. I am as unhappy about the situation as the Deputy, but we must concur with it. I inherited the position when I came to office because it was signed in March 1997.
The answer is that a charge is not required under the directive.
