Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 3, to delete lines 15 to 17.

I do not believe this is intentional but an inadvertent issue has arisen. Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 deal with concern about the language proposed to be added to section 18 of the original Act. Adding the phrase "in this section" will narrow the impact of the protection applied by section 18 to any process of review. It would ensure the protections and processes of the review outlined in section 18 would not extend to section 18A.

The core of the Bill is the introduction of a new section 18A that sets out the process for the designation or dedesignation of areas of natural heritage and peatland. There is an inadvertent danger, that can be addressed either by accepting amendment No. 5 or amendment No. 6, that section 18A would be missing the usual protections on process. To clarify what these protections are, at present section 18(4)(a) of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000 sets out a number of provisions on publication where a Minister proposes to amend or revoke a natural heritage area order. The Minister of State addressed, replicated and, in fact, improved on these in his amendment with regard to publication and transparency and I welcome the fact he included engagement with the relevant committee. These are two very positive steps that replicate successfully section 18(4)(a) of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000.

Section 18(4)(b) relates to the provisions of subsections (2), (4) and (5) of section 16 of the same Act and states they must apply to any proposed amendment or revocation of a natural heritage area order. This is not replicated elsewhere in the Bill. Section 16 of the Act states the Minister shall "seek the observations of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, the Minister for Public Enterprise, the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, and such other Minister of the Government as the Minister considers appropriate in the circumstances". This is a very important provision. It states that prior to an order for a natural heritage area being revoked that the Minister would have to consult with other relevant Ministers.I consider the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment, for example, to be crucial whereas others might regard the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine as such. If the Minister for Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht were to seek to de-designate a natural heritage area or revoke an order of protection, he or she would be required to seek observations from the Ministers under section 18. If we do not include section 18A, however, the new orders that are made will not require him or her to consult other relevant Ministers. It is significant.

Other provisions are missing, such as a requirement that there be access to a map showing the area outlined. I have made such provisions in amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 5. It should also be required that the notice be sent to a Garda Síochána office. A number of other important parts of the process are not provided for in the Bill and will not apply to the orders made under it, but the crucial omission relates to consultation with Ministers. I am concerned about that. I hope that section 18A will be included, as proposed by amendment No. 6, in order that both sections 18 and 18A will be covered. I presume that was the policy intent. Otherwise, it may be decided to remove the words "in this section". I believe that amendment No. 6 is the clearest because it does not run the risk of any wider application but simply extends the provisions from section 18 to section 18A.

I realise that the omission may have been inadvertent because the Bill concerns all the various Acts and how their various sections intersect. I would hate if we were to lose progress, consultation or the level of transparency that currently exists under the new and, one hopes, better laws.