Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for the very interesting presentation. There is no harm in reminding ourselves why we are here and why we are having this discussion. I am not sure if any of the witnesses have heard of the ring ouzel. Deputy Whitmore and others will probably have heard of it. It is a stunning species of bird. They are like big blackbirds. The male has a beautiful white band that goes across its breast. It is absolutely stunning. I found out this week that they are functionally extinct in Ireland. This year, the last breeding pair was discovered. It is too late for them. That is really sad. These birds love high altitude. A few generations ago, those growing up in the Wicklow mountains or in the mountains of Donegal or Killarney would have heard the beautiful flute-like song of the ring ouzel. Now they are gone. There is one pair left, so the species is functionally extinct. Unfortunately, any nature law that we bring in now is too late to save the ring ouzel. They are destined for the same fate as birds like the corn bunting because they have no protection and no right to exist under Irish law. That is why we are here. That is what we have to change.

The issue with the ring ouzel is that it is a migratory species. We have messed up its habitat in Ireland. That is for sure, but 77% of its decline is due to hunting in France. The hunting of ring ouzel is banned in France, yet 77% of its decline is due to hunting there. They have passed a law to stop the hunting of the ring ouzel, but it still happens. Many of these species are migratory. How do we get cross-consensus with different countries on the matter? We see the hunting of passerines happening right throughout the Mediterranean, particularly in Cyprus and Greece. How do we make all of that tie up? Whatever we do here, and even if we introduced a law here to protect the ring ouzel ten years ago, its fate is sealed, unfortunately. How do we come up with an international agreement to address that?

The right of nature to exist needs to be enshrined in the Constitution. This should be done by means of a referendum. I disagree slightly with Senator Dooley. Yes, we have to ensure that the correct narrative takes place, and sometimes it is hard to do that. Sometimes when it is left to legislators, the voice of the minority becomes stronger and more powerful, yet with a referendum, the voice of the majority comes through and you get the correct result. That is why I think a referendum is the right way to go. That is a comment and not a question.

Regarding countries such as Ecuador and Panama which have introduced a constitutional right of nature, will Ms Margil give a little bit more detail as to how that has worked in practice? What effect has it had? Has it prevented the destruction of habitats? Have there been high-profile court cases in these countries?

My final question is for all the witnesses. Two of the other recommendations were that we would have a stand-alone Minister with responsibility for biodiversity. Do the witnesses agree with this recommendation?

Through the co-operation of this committee, which I am very proud to be part of, we have taken on this assessment of the recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity. We did not have to as it actually does not fall within our remit, which is ridiculous. The following question from that is whether the witnesses believe that there should be a stand-alone committee with responsibility for nature and biodiversity.