Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE) | Oireachtas source

Unless I am misreading it, in which case the Minister of State will correct me, the proposed amendment does not deal with the main problem, which is that there is potential for the dedesignation of a large number of NHAs and allowing peat mining to take place. There is explicit reference in respect of dedesignation to national, regional and local economic needs. This means economic needs could be a reason to abandon our commitment to tackle the biodiversity crisis. That is my understanding. The amendments are as bad as each other as far as I can see in terms of what came from Seanad and what is now being proposed. There is no qualitative difference between them. How does what is proposed chime or marry with the Government's rhetorical commitment to protecting biodiversity? The Minister of State was delayed in going to Montreal because of a Dáil motion. There was a big deal made of that. He went over there and committed to high-level targets and so on protecting 30% of land and sea by 2030. That is great but he then comes back here and is in favour of a Bill that has the potential to lead to dedesignation and less protection for our bogs, which are vital in protecting biodiversity.

See this speech in context