Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank everybody who supported amendment No. 10 in my name, although it was unsuccessful, and those who are considering the issues that arise from amendment No. 11. As a result of its insertion, the Bill now states the purposes of a review under the section may contribute to the achievement of nature conservation objectives and maintaining bog habitats, or restoring those favoured for conservation status, which is great. I recognise that paragraph (b) reads: "contributing to the carbon sequestration potential of bog habitats". It also refers to studying national plans concerning pollinator decline, paraphrasing amendment No. 10 in my name.

The core paragraph (c) refers to the selection of bog habitats for designation or de-designation as natural heritage areas. Amendment No. 14a in my name tries to ensure that where designation or de-designation takes place, a review would include other considerations such as the achievement of nature conservation, carbon sequestration and pollinator decline. The Minister of State gave me a verbal assurance, but the amendment is an attempt to copperfasten it in legislation. The way he has phrased it in the Bill - "The purposes of a review under subsection (1) include..." - shows that he regards it as being inclusive of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).The Minister of State has made it clear about the way he phrases it in the Bill, which states, "The purposes of a review under subsection (1) include", so the Minister of State regards that as inclusive of (a), (b) and (c). My amendment is to copper-fasten that so that it is very clear and we do not have a review to designate or de-designate that does not also encompass the issues in (a) and (b) of subsection (3) of section 4.