Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senators for their comments. As they know, the proposed change that was passed by the other House came from a comprehensive committee discussion going back some years and which was subsequently brought forward by amendment to the Dáil when it was decided to include blanket bogs with raised bogs as part of the legislation.

As Senators are aware, the main objective of the 2014 raised bog natural heritage areas, NHA, review was to look at how the network contributes to our conservation objectives for raised bog habitats, while avoiding impacts on the traditional rights of landowners and turf cutters and minimising the costs arising from compensation payments. Reconfiguration of the raised bog network, which this Bill will facilitate, is based on sound scientific evidence and will have a positive impact on the network.

The Wildlife (Amendment) Bill 2016, as initiated, has been amended in Dáil Éireann and now provides for the Minister for Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, at his or her discretion, to conduct a review or reviews of the blanket bog natural heritage areas network as well as to continue and complete the 2014 review of the raised bog natural heritage area network. The Bill now gives the Minister the power to conduct a review or reviews of the blanket bog natural heritage areas at some point in the future without obliging the Minister to do so. Such a review of the blanket bog natural heritage areas would not be done in a vacuum. It would involve public consultation and would not necessarily lead to proposals for the dedesignation of blanket bog NHA sites. Those are principles and criteria in the Bill to guide a Minister conducting a review and in making decisions such as the carrying out of a strategic environmental assessment, public consultation and linking the achievement of nature conservation objectives for blanket bog habitats to the favourable conservation status of the habitats. As set out in the Bill, the heart of any future review would be nature conservation in terms of maintaining bog habitats at, or restoring bog habitats to, a favourable conservation status.

The ministerial amendments are to provide that when the Minister for Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht dedesignates all or part of a natural heritage area by making an order to amend or revoke a natural heritage area, the Minister will inform the general public of the notice or of the making of the order, place an advertisement in a national newspaper and publish it on the Internet. The Minister will also cause a copy of the notice or a copy of the order to be sent to the Oireachtas committee whose remit encompasses natural heritage. The Bill already provides that an amendment of the making of a natural heritage order to amend or revoke a natural heritage area order will be placed in a local newspaper and copies of the order will be sent to various Ministers, public bodies and defined owners or occupiers of the land. The proposed amendments will facilitate the widespread dissemination of the making of an order to amend or revoke a natural heritage area order in order to dedesignate all or part of the site of a natural heritage area. Therefore, I will not be accepting amendment No. 1.

There would be public consultation for any blanket bog review before any decision would be taken regarding dedesignation. While the discussion heretofore has been about raised bogs, it has not been done in isolation from blanket bogs. I have been at plenty of meetings in the heart of Connemara, which has a predominance of blanket bogland. This has been in the public consciousness as long as issues concerning raised bogs. It has been the feature of a number of meetings, consultation and engagement between Department officials and turf cutters in those areas. The inclusion of blanket bogs as part of the legislation makes perfect sense. We have had a review of the raised bogs and this will allow for consultation and designation or dedesignation of blanket bogs within strict criteria such as strategic environmental assessments and public consultation. It makes perfect sense in terms of the nature and spirit of what we are trying to do. Let us not forget, it is not just about dedesignation, it is also about designation. We want to put a greater emphasis on the State-owned lands, which are easier to manage, which are in public ownership. That is something many turf cutters wanted. They feel there is an undue burden on the small guy, as it were, and that the State is negating its obligations in terms of the land blocks it has. Designation is as important as dedesignation in the context of this review.