Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I can speak to amendment No. 7. I also put on the record my unhappiness that our amendments have been ruled out of order as being a cost on the State. I do not agree, particularly given the nature of the amendments reflect the recommendations from the pre-legislative scrutiny report on the threshold levels. Why does Ireland seem to deem itself to have a different standard from our closest neighbours while having very similar geography and hydrology? I would like to hear the rationale. If we cannot move our amendments, I would at least like to hear the rationale for thinking that Ireland needs much higher thresholds than the North of Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Amendment No. 7 states that "the Minister shall have particular regard to the species and habitats protected under the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive." The rationale for this is that protected areas are defined in section 2 as including areas requiring special protection under the habitats and birds directive. The primary protection afforded to European sites under the habitats directive is set out in Article 6.3, which states, "Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives."

Part 4 of SI No. 477/2011 also places an onus on "Any public authority having or exercising functions, including consent functions, which may have implications for or effects on nature conservation shall exercise those functions in compliance with and, as appropriate, so as to secure compliance with, the requirements of the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive..." We believe the Bill as drafted does not give due regard to the obligations under the habitats and birds directives because a project may have an indirect impact on a special area of conservation, SAC, or on a particular species, whereas the Minister of State is looking at the specifics. We believe it is not sufficiently robust to protect the State's obligations under the habitats and birds directives. Amendment No. 7 seeks to tighten that up requiring the Minister to have particular regard to species and habitats so that any plan for extraction of water will not have a negative knock-on impact.