Mr. P?draic Fogarty:

Perhaps that is a resourcing issue. A lot of the time, if we are out and about and we see damage in an SAC or someone sees a digger working in an SAC and we wonder if that should be going on or not, we can call the local wildlife ranger, who might be able to say whether it should be happening.

It may be harder for them to tell us whether we can do something about it. However, in some parts of the country we do not have wildlife rangers. That is a resourcing issue and not necessarily a legislative one.

Head 17 it talks about how MPAs are to be identified. It says they will be identified using the best available scientific information. That is great, it is what we want and need. However it also says they will seek to minimise the negative economic impacts and maximise the positive economic impacts. To me, that is not only contrary to deciding where these are in regard to best scientific information but it is also inappropriate for a Bill that is about the conservation of nature. There is already a provision elsewhere about overriding reasons of public interest if there is an absolute need to do something. In EU law under the habitats directive there is a mechanism that is not just a willy-nilly get-out clause. It is quite a serious trigger. Putting in something that says we have to maximise the economic impacts and minimise the costs is not appropriate.