I move: That the Committee do not agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1 to the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill 2016. First, I would like to outline some of the background to the Bill and the context around it at this point. The Bill has had a long and somewhat complex road to get to this point. The purpose of the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill 2016 is to give legal effect to the proposed reconfiguration of the raised bog natural heritage area network. This reconfiguration arises from a national study of our raised bog reso…

That is correct.

Amendments Nos. 1, 1c and 2 are being taken together as they relate to one another. I will speak to these amendments together, if that is okay. Amendment No. 1, as proposed by the Seanad, amends section 16 of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000. Section 16 sets out the statutory process for when a Minister intends to designate a natural heritage area. Amendment No. 1 was a Government amendment in the Seanad. It was drafted in response to issues raised by the Opposition in the Seanad. The amendment simply sought to fa…

I move: That the Committee do not agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2 to the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill 2016.

I move consequential amendment No. 1c: Section 2: In page 3, lines 12 to 14, to delete all words from and including “Section” in line 12 down to and including line 14 and substitute the following: “Section 16 of the Act of 2000 is amended— (a) by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (1): “(1) Where the Minister is of the opinion, having regard to subsection (6)(a), that any land forms, or is part of, a natural heritage area, or, is satisfied under section 18A(4)(a) that a natural heritage are…

I move: That the Committee do not agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3 to the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill 2016. Amendments Nos. 3, 3c and 4 to 11, inclusive, are grouped and I propose to talk through these together. The Bill amends the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000 by the insertion of a new section - section 18A - after section 18 of that Act. Section 18A sets out how the 2014 review is to be completed and the requirements for future reviews of blanket bog NHAs. Seanad amendments Nos. 3 and 4 propose changes to t…

Perhaps I do. The Government amendments seek to respect the decision that was made in the Seanad. We moved out the prescriptive element of specifying greenways or golf courses. It was already in amendment No. 4 and that was rejected. Regarding the NHA review, we will have to look at all criteria. The Deputies referred to the provision regarding "national, regional and local economic, social and cultural needs" and other criteria. These considerations will have to be balanced against other criteria such as restorati…

I move consequential amendment No. 3c: Section 4: In page 4, to delete lines 5 to 11 and substitute the following: "(b) contributing to the carbon sequestration potential of bog habitats; (c) contributing to actions, relevant to bog habitats, contained in a national plan or a plan for the island of Ireland, concerning the reversal of pollinator decline; (d) selecting the most suitable bog habitats— (i) to be designated as natural heritage areas having regard to— (I) all of the matters to which the Minister is requi…

I move: That the Committee do not agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 4 to the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill 2016.

I move: That the Committee do not agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 11 to the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill 2016.

This is a Government amendment to put Ireland's national biodiversity plans on a statutory footing and create a public duty in respect of biodiversity for public bodies. The amendment introduces a new Part to the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000 and new sections 59A to 59H. The proposal to introduce such an amendment was approved by the Seanad without a vote. Under the amendment, the Minister will be required to publish a national biodiversity action plan and guidelines every three to five years. The legislation propo…

I move: That the Committee do not agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 13 to the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill 2016. Seanad amendment No. 13 is an Opposition amendment from the Seanad. The Bill, as passed by the Seanad, contained a new section as a result of amendment No. 13. This new section provides that the Minister will, within 12 months of the passing of the Bill, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas containing guidelines and recommended thresholds in relation to the exercise of turbary rights inclu…

Domestic turf-cutting can continue in sites outside the reconfigured protected natural heritage area, NHA, network with no requirement for ministerial consent, subject to normal thresholds. We are trying to establish these thresholds. It is useful for enforcement but it is also useful for policy. The report on the turf required for a household will give us a general indication of what an individual household would require on an annual basis where domestic turf-cutting can continue.

That is a good point. I imagine so.

I move consequential amendment No. 13c : In page 6, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following: Report on household use of turf 5 . (a) Within 12 months of the coming into operation of this section, the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage shall prepare a report on the average amount of turf required by an individual on an annual basis for the purpose of household use. (b) The Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage shall, as soon as practicable but not later than 3 months after the …

I move: That the Committee do not agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 14 to the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill 2016. This amendment, as proposed by the Seanad, provides that before an order can be made de-designating an NHA, a report shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas on current condition, restoration potential and re-wetting potential, the special scientific interest of sites and other such factors as the Minister may deem necessary of all blanket bog NHAs. This amendment was accepted in the Seanad s…

Restoration potential is already catered for in the Bill. Restoration potential is the same as rewetting. Restoration is achieved through rewetting. We see that with the nature restoration regulation, which refers to rewetting, but it is one of the measures as part of restoration. It is already there. If anything, the concerns of the Irish Wildlife Trust to which Deputy Cian O'Callaghan referred are unfounded. What we are achieving with this will give effect to considering the potential in the review of the restora…

I move consequential amendment No. 14c1: Section 5: In page 3, line 24, to insert “subject to subsection (5),” before “may conduct”.

I move consequential amendment No. 14c2: Section 5: In page 3, to delete lines 27 to 29.

I move consequential amendment No. 14c3: Section 5: In page 4, line 1 to delete “(3) The purposes” and substitute “(2) The purposes”.