Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their very interesting presentations. What is wrong with the existing foundation of the law when it comes to describing the protection of natural environments? The suggestion is that we create a constitutional right over and above the existing law.

I acknowledge Senator Dooley's remarks in respect of it being notoriously difficult to win a referendum. Although we need to shift the balance of rights, if a constitutional amendment is made, it will be left to judges to decide how those rights will be shifted. If we are going to shift the rights towards nature and away from those who use it, we, as legislators, need to articulate the criteria. We know how this will be assessed by the judges. In terms of the reaction to much of the proposed legislation, the unpredictability of what is meant by these things is what creates the problem. I can easily envisage people saying they will never be able to do their garden or light a fire if this inalienable right that is not specified or qualified in some way is created. Dr. Ryall stated a robust, evidence-based and balanced set of recommendations is needed. The difficulty is whether it can be made robust, evidence-based and balanced if it is just a sentence.

If it is just a sentence, we have learned at our cost in this regard concerning sentences that were put into the Constitution back in the 1980s. We spent the intervening time trying to unravel that insertion until we finally got rid of it. There is an issue in this regard.

Additionally, how do we achieve this coherence? I would have thought we would do this institutionally rather than via a constitutional right. If we wish to have coherence between bodies in protecting nature, then we would do what we have done with the climate action plan and have it overseen by the Department of the Taoiseach, set out those things that need to be done and set timelines, etc. This is how institutionally we would normally approach a lack of coherence or fragmentation. I wonder, therefore, if having a constitutional right is the right approach. I can see how it could be perceived as a measure where, with one stroke of the pen, our hero is freed, so to speak. It would give us the feeling that we had done something really significant. The trouble, in this regard, though, is how it would be used afterward.