Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

A number of core questions have again arisen. While the Minister of State envisages a fuller process, envisaging is not the same as ensuring. Given the debate we had on Committee Stage, it is curious that section 16(6), which has the benefit of listing specific concerns including "scientific interest for one or more species, communities, habitats, landforms or geological or geomorphological features, or [...] diversity of natural attributes", is not to be referenced. It would have been very useful, and would have strengthened the case the Minister of State is making in respect of a future process, to clearly include those relatively important scientific factors in the environmental criteria. Whether or not this amendment is successful, these factors should be reflected. I am aware that should amendment No. 11 be successful, my amendments Nos. 13 and 14, which seek to improve the substance of section 4 of the Bill by the amendment of the proposed new section 18A(3) of the Act of 2000, will fall. I cannot amend text that has not yet been inserted but, in light of this, I hope that those in the Dáil will amend and insert changes to the Minister of State's amendment No. 11. I hope they will take on board the concerns in respect of narrowing the focus to raised bogs only and will include a parity of consideration by ensuring that section 16(6) of the 2000 Act is fully reflected in the Bill.

The wording of the Bill as discussed on Committee Stage referred to national, regional and local economic, social and cultural needs. I did not object to that, although I objected to the overall section, but I think it captured quite a lot. I do not know what is added by including "recreational and sporting needs". If we have serious concerns in respect of the community, culture, the GAA, greenways, or access routes, the phrase "national, regional and local economic, social and cultural needs" is already wide enough to address such concerns. I am therefore cautious and concerned about the explicit inclusion of recreational and sporting needs. I do not see what additional benefit there is for the cases the Minister of State mentioned, such as walkways, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, and access for heritage or environmental routes.They were already covered. I am concerned that the words "recreational and sporting needs", especially as they are not defined in the Bill, could be taken as referring to golf courses, hotels, car parks or anything else because the meaning is wide open. The Bill includes a definition of "greenways", but it does not include a definition of "recreational and sporting needs (including greenways) appropriate to bog habitats". I have tabled amendments to seek to address that issue and hope the Minister of State will be able to provide some assurance for the public on it. I have received many expressions of concern about what the words "recreational and sporting needs" mean. I hope the Minister of State will also be able to accept my later amendments which seek to involve the Environmental Protection Agency or others in defining what is meant by "recreational and sporting needs". It is wide open and the words could be taken to mean almost anything connected to tourism, a commercial or other use that has a recreational element.

The core issue is what the Minister of State said about considering the impact on the environment, the level of degradation, etc. If we were referring simply to considering those issues, that would be something. This, however, involves a comparison. The core problem I am seeking to address is that it is possible to make a comparison of the 36 natural heritage areas, to decide to dedesignate 20 of them and to only keep the best 16. That would be instead of each bog being considered on its own merits. I am worried that there will be a "Weakest Link" elimination process and that that is what is covered by the environmental criteria. I refer to it as being a mechanism for comparison, not consideration. It could allow a decision to be made to dedesignate 34 of the areas and keep only the best two. The wording used is not substantial enough.

I appreciate that after the Minister of State makes proposals for dedesignation, there will be public consultation and consideration of other factors. However, I would much prefer if that consultation and consideration under the European habitats and bird directives happened before specific proposals were made. I will, therefore, press amendment No. 10. I hope we can work together to address, or ameliorate, some of the concerns I have expressed about the amendment, particularly changes to section 18A(3), in the context of later amendments in my name.