Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I am using today's Commencement matter to raise the important issue of wildlife crime. The Citizens’ Assembly on Biodiversity Loss was crystal clear in stating that the State has failed to adequately enforce existing laws and policies to protect biodiversity. Wildlife crimes, such as disturbing bats, illegal hare hunting, badger baiting or the destruction of habitats that provide clean water, clean air and healthy soils, all contribute to the loss of biodiversity. Weak enforcement in this country is sending the clear message that wildlife crime is tolerated and is not taken seriously. Unfortunately, despite some high-profile cases of illegal wildfires and poisonings, there has been a failure to crack down on wildlife crime in any meaningful way.

I will provide some statistics to highlight that failure. The records from when the Wildlife Act came in show that between 1977 and 1987, there were 752 cases, which was an average of 75 prosecutions per year. However, only 118 wildlife crime cases have closed successfully since 2020, which is an average of 39.3 per year. This is a drop of 48% in prosecutions per year. This is not because the crimes are not happening, unfortunately. I know that this subject is not in the Minister of State’s portfolio, but she will more than likely cite year-on-year increase of 39% from 2022 to 2023, which is up to 43 prosecutions. While that is a step in the right direction, we are starting from a very low level. This is therefore an example of shifting baseline syndrome.

I also know that in the 1980s, a target was set for the number of prosecutions per year. That was a target of 200 and it was not reached, given the average of 75. The recently launched national biodiversity action plan does not contain a specific target for prosecutions. Instead, it just has the vague ambition to seek to increase compliance with wildlife legislation in co-operation with agencies through enhanced detection, enforcement and awareness raising.

My first question for the Minister of State is whether she or any of the agencies agree that there should be a specific target? Should we be setting a target and, if so, what should that target be? The citizens’ assembly has called on the State to take prompt, decisive, and urgent action to address biodiversity loss and restoration.We need a zero-tolerance approach to wildlife crime. There was some optimism, I have to say, at the start of this Government's term, with a focus on wildlife crime making it into the programme for Government. However, that dissipated when we saw the U-turn on a dedicated wildlife crime unit. We know that one of the main barriers to increasing prosecutions is that the responsibilities of the NPWS are so wide ranging and require skill sets that are extremely specialised. Bringing prosecutions is clearly a complicated task so the only real way to bridge this gap, as the experts have said, is to establish the promised wildlife crime unit, a go-to hub to support regional staff with the procedures for detection, investigation, putting a prosecution file together and bringing it to the Chief State Solicitor's Office.

Does the Minister of State agree that a target would be helpful to set the agenda and drive the ambition in the context of a zero-tolerance approach to wildlife crime? Will the Government reconsider its position on establishing a wildlife crime unit which all of the experts have said is essential for tackling such crime?