Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I would nearly be able to put this to music if I had any musical skills because we keep getting the same answer. For example, "As we discussed then, the restoration of this Bill to the Order paper is not straightforward." It is my understanding that this issue was resolved and that it is straightforward: one brings back the amendments or makes amendments under the relevant Standing Order to those amendments, and then the Bill comes back in.

As I have said, there are four amendments that could be contentious, and the rest are Government amendments. They are not that complex as issues. Amendment No. 2 was tabled by Senator Alice Mary Higgins and Senator Lynn Ruane to allow the Minister to propose a site for designation by virtue of its role in carbon sequestration or pollination specifically.

That is either accepted, rejected or amended. I do not see the complication there. Amendment No. 13 requires the Minister to commission a report on the guidelines of threshold for turbary rights, including a definition of household dues. It is not rocket science. Amendment No. 14 would effectively require the Minister, before making an order to dedesignate an natural heritage area, NHA, to lay a report before the Oireachtas on the site's condition, restoration, rewetting potential and so on. If the Ceann Comhairle will give me a little indulgence, there is one more, No. 15.

Let us be clear that we are seeking to give the Minister of State the ultimate Aladdin's lamp, because we are giving him new, pristine lands to designate as NHAs in return for degraded NHA bog, and he will not take the Aladdin's lamp when he is getting the new lamp. He must think there is a genie inside.

See this speech in context