Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome these amendments, which reflect the outcome of the conference on biodiversity and the debate that has been taking place in the context of biodiversity. It is very positive to see that translated into action. A question arises as to how that comes into effect and how it will be implemented. How can we ensure that this will become practice in each public body? The Minister of State mentioned possible different implementation dates for aspects of the legislation. My colleague spoke about the heartbreaking destruction visited upon the Tallaght wetlands recently. Senator Kelleher and I spoke when the Gearagh woodlands in Cork were devastated by the ESB during the clean-up after Storm Ophelia. This was one of the oldest of ancient woodlands in Ireland. As I look through the public bodies, there is a litany of situations that have arisen whereby if there had been a biodiversity imperative or a requirement for that consideration, perhaps the body involved might have taken a different approach.

How will the consideration of biodiversity be taken on board by these bodies through their strategies and plans in dealing with situations such as happened with the clean up after Storm Ophelia? Road safety concerns were discussed during the proceedings relating to the Heritage Bill. It would be good to know that attention will be paid to difference in practice in how this rolls out. We should not simply have a document that sits on the shelf on each of these bodies, but that there is a review of practice in each of them. I know those public bodies make a report to the Minister under section 59F. I hope we will have the opportunity to engage and look comparatively at those reports.

This is very positive. I have a few concerns. The Minister is required to publish the plan "Not later than 36 months after the coming into operation of section 59B". Three years seems a long time given the current rate of biodiversity loss. We are in the middle of what has been called the sixth mass extinction, with 200 species becoming extinct each day. Research this year indicates that humanity has wiped out 60% of mammals, birds, fish and reptiles since 1970. Experts have warned us about this. The assessment is that 85% of habitats are reported as being in unfavourable status or condition and 46% of habitats demonstrate ongoing and declining trends. This has been echoed by bodies such as BirdWatch Ireland in local specific research in Ireland. For example, we know that wintering water birds have declined by 40% in the past two decades. There has been an acceleration of ecological collapse, environmental damage and biodiversity loss. In that sense, I would prefer if it was 12 months rather than 36 before we look to our first plans. I hope that Departments and individual public bodies are not allowed to drag their feet on these actions. Obviously, this is Report Stage so we will not have an opportunity to amend the section. However, I will support the section and the Minister of State's proposals.

I ask him to address a concern I have over section 59D, which states, "The Minister may consult as he or she considers appropriate with public bodies and the public during the preparation of a plan, programme or strategy". I know flexibility is needed, but is it envisaged that the Minister might not feel he or she needs to engage in such consultation? I feel it is too broad and seems to leave it almost entirely to the Minister's discretion. I imagine that certain bodies such as the National Parks and Wildlife Service should definitely be in consultation with the Minister on this strategy.

The Bill provides for the designation of new public bodies. The amendment states that the Minister may prescribe a body, "where the Minister is of the opinion that the body, other person, company, organisation or group has functions that have or may have a bearing on matters concerning biodiversity or is in a position to promote the conservation of biodiversity." Are they public bodies for the purposes of this section of the Bill and therefore this Act? The question of the definition of public body came up in another Bill. For example, a private company may be on contract to the State for three or five years. It is appropriate that is should be held to the standards of public bodies in executing any services it may be executing at the behest of the State. At the same time, it is still different from a public body. We would not want a company contracted by the State that is determined to be a public body based on the function it performs for the State to be able to categorise itself as a public body in the context of slightly different functions it may also be performing.