Wildlife (Amendment) Bill, 1999: Report Stage 7th December, 2000 An Cathaoirleach: Before we commence I remind Senators that they may speak only once on Report Stage, except the proposer of an amendment who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. On Report Stage each amendment must be seconded. Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 10 to 14, inclusive, are related and may be taken together by agreement. Mr. Quinn: I move amendment No. 1: In page 18, line 42, after "and" to insert "such information shall also be published by electronic means and". I welcome the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands to the House. I thank her for adjusting her schedule to take Report Stage this week rather than, as was planned originally, to take Committee and remaining Stages on the one day. This legislation is a reminder of the need to take our time. A number of amendments were tabled but none was accepted. I was afraid that the message might have gone out that the Minister did not plan to listen and improve the Bill. The fact that she waited until today to take Report Stage is evidence that she is willing to listen to us and to improve the Bill. I resubmitted most of the amendments I tabled on Committee Stage. I did that not because I hope they will be accepted by the Minister but to give us an opportunity to discuss the quite important principles involved. It is for reasons of principle and expediency that I believe these amendments should be accepted. I hope the Minister will consider and accept them. Let me begin by addressing the reasons suggested by my colleague, Senator Norris, last week. He suggested that the rejection of the amendments could be put down to a reluctance on the part of the Minister to go to the bother of returning to the Dáil to have my amendments passed there, especially in the run up to Christmas. Last week he bet his last polo mint that no amendments would be accepted. That is why I hope he will not come here today. I want to win his polo mint even if it is his last one. He got to enjoy his polo mint last week. I am reluctant to accept Senator Norris's reasoning. I do not mind that I do not or cannot believe it. The truth is I do not want to believe that the Minister is not going to listen and take amendments, even if she agrees with them, just because we are coming up to Christmas and she does not want to go back to the Dáil. This is important legislation which has been in the works for many years. It has been in these Houses for well over 12 months. I cannot believe that Minister would rush it at the last fence. I prefer to believe, in my innocence, that she has come here with an open mind about the possibilities of accepting amendments and improving this Bill through Senators' scrutiny of it. We have had some very good debates on this legislation over the past couple of weeks. 11 o'clock Therefore, in good faith or, at least, with a suspension of disbelief - which is slightly different - let us take the Minister's arguments for rejecting these amendments at face value and address them on their merits. We run into a difficulty straight away because the most superficial glance at the case put forward by the Minister shows she has made an elementary error in constructing her Bill. That mistake is to read the sections I wish to amend as enabling clauses, which were the Minister's words last week, which empower the Minister to do something. They are not enabling clauses. Instead, they are restrictive clauses. There is a huge difference. Without exception, they seek to put a boundary on the powers of the Minister and future Ministers to do what he or she likes, by specifying the occasions and manner in which certain information must be put into the public domain before the Minister can perform certain actions under this Bill. There is a big difference. I drew attention on Committee Stage to the long-standing tradition in these Houses of bounding the powers of the Minister and future Ministers. I know the Minister intends this legislation to last a long time, so when I refer to "the Minister", I am also referring to future Ministers. It seems unfair to infer the present Minister will always be in office, although I am sure she will be there for a long time. I drew attention to the long-standing tradition of bounding the powers of future Ministers in this way. The ability of the Legislature to put a fence around the way future Ministers can behave is one of the fundamentals of our democracy. That recognises the great truth that knowledge is power, and that by enforcing the dissemination of knowledge to the public, we put a constraint on the power of the Executive. A set of publication tools has been developed over the years, each for use in appropriate cases. This has occurred over hundreds of years, if one takes other parliaments into account. The annual report and accounts that I talked about last week is used as the main public control mechanism over semi-State bodies, which have to publish an account, even if they do not want to. In recent years, they have had to publish that account within a certain number of months because some of us have insisted on that. There are also public registers of information, which are required to be kept up to date and open permanently to any member of the public. We also talked about that last week. They are usually only open during office hours, but that is the way things happened from the 1920s until now. There is also publication through advertisements or public notice, which is particularly appropriate when it is necessary to draw the attention of the public to an action the Minister is proposing to take. Those three mechanisms restrict the power of the Executive and the Minister. They say the Minister cannot do something unless he or she fulfils that requirement. In all these cases, the intent and effect of the legislation is to restrict the future Minister's actions. It is a fundamental misreading of those clauses to interpret them as empowering the Minister or whoever is involved. A requirement to publish an annual report does not empower a semi-State body to publish a report, rather, it disempowers that body from not publishing a report. I hope that huge difference is understood. I want the Minister to understand my concern at what I regard as her misunderstanding last week. A requirement to keep a public register of certain information does not empower a Minister or other body to keep such a register, it disempowers those people from not doing so. A requirement to advertise certain information does not empower a Minister or other body to indulge in such advertising, it disempowers them from not doing so. Such measures and restrictions serve to strengthen the rights of citizens. They are not there to widen the powers of the Minister or a semi-State body. That is why reviewing these restrictions and keeping them up to date is an important part of the task of the Houses of Parliament and of the role of the Legislature in preserving the very nature of democratic government. I know I am spending a long time on this, but we are taking a group of amendments together and I can only speak once on them. We have an obligation to consider the possibilities opened up by new technology. As many Senators noted last week, these possibilities are very extensive. The worldwide web did not exist until about 1990. Although it was not invented to further the workings of democracy, it is potentially a most worthwhile tool in achieving that task. The tools of publication that have been developed by our legislative tradition have not been perfect in achieving their effect. However, they were rightly employed as the best that were available at that time. When a new tool appears on the horizon that has the potential to bring the world of democratic publication a giant step closer to the ideal we are all seeking, we have an obligation to look at it, try it out and, if it works, embrace it. We will never be inclined to do that if we misunderstand the whole process and see publication clauses as giving enabling powers to the Minister, which is a fundamental difference. That, I regret to say, seems to be the thrust of the advice given to the Minister in her response to the amendments I tabled on Committee Stage. This was summed up by the Minister's statement: There is no need for a specific provision of the type proposed by Senators Quinn and Henry in the Bill. The requirements already included in the relevant sections of the Bill normally to publish such information in Iris Oifigiúil and-or at least one local newspaper represent only the minimum such requirement on the Minister under the Bill.

In other words, there is nothing to stop the Minister taking additional measures to publish the information if she thinks fit. Of course there is not, but the point of my amendments is to require him or her to take the particular additional measures, whether or not he or she thinks fit. There is a fundamental difference in thinking between the advice the Minister has been given, the words she used last week and what I propose. The point of my amendments is exactly the same as the point of the underlying section. They seek to restrict what the Minister might see fit to do or not do. That is fundamental. They seek to restrict future Ministers in the interests of achieving a very worthwhile end - the best possible kind of publication, from the democratic point of view. I will cite the Minister further to illustrate how deeply entrenched is her mistaken view of the point of this part of the legislation. She said: There is nothing in the Bill to preclude the Minister from disseminating such information in other ways also, including by electronic means, where it is considered necessary to do so. If I believe the information is not circulating satisfactorily to the people concerned, the use of electronic means to improve the situation will be considered. I do not wish, however, to have too many stipulations in the legislation as to how such information should be published. That last sentence lets the cat out of the bag. While we should applaud the Minister's honesty in admitting it, she is saying she does not want her power to be further circumscribed. This is the fundamental issue. We are concerned with restricting the powers of the Minister to do what he or she likes in the future. The legislation requires her to do only a certain minimum by way of publication. It leaves it to the whim of the Minister and her successors to decide on the most appropriate means of achieving desirable democratic ends. I want to restrict that. This is a practical issue. Belief in the future of the information society and of Ireland's role within it is patchy in the Government. To give him credit, the Taoiseach is among those who are converted. This was reflected in the award given to him on 9 October as the cyber champion of the year. In accepting the reward he renewed the Government's commitment to doing its business on-line. He said: The Government itself is also working to use the power of the new technologies to do its job better by getting public services on line. Key steps we have taken include the Revenue on-line service, which provides an increasing array of on-line services and which went live on 29th September, and the FÁS on-line jobs service. Only a few weeks ago we launched the new REACH agency to work with the Government to find the best way to deliver their services electronically. We have also initiated the Cabinet Project which will bring the benefits of modern technologies right to the highest level at decision making in the Government - the Cabinet table. This is realistic and forward looking. It is fully in line with the economic goal of making Ireland the e-commerce hub of Europe. Some Ministers share that openness towards the future and are working towards achieving it. For example, the Minister for Public Enterprise took a major step forward with the early passing into law of the Electronic Commerce Bill, which I am pleased to say she initiated in this House. Other Ministers who have recently introduced legislation to the House were very open to amendments of this kind. However, belief in the information age is patchy across the Government. All reports of recent years make discreet reference to the problem, but certain Ministers and higher civil servants do not want to know. There is an excellent way of separating the sheep from the goats by looking at the websites of the different Departments. I do not want to add to the discomfort of the Minister, who every time she answers questions in the Dáil must squirm with embarrassment at the criticism of her Department's website. There are some excellent Government websites, some are average and some are dreadful. Senator Norris would be safe in betting his last polo mint, as he did last week, on which of these categories the Minster's website falls into. The state of a Department or company website is a good indicator of where it stands in relation to the future. For some the information society is the present. They are exploiting it with a view to staying ahead. For others it is a nebulous concept to be adjusted to when it becomes more prevalent. Their websites are usually under construction, or, to use the jargon, "in re-design". On a positive note let me tell a story against myself. At the beginning of 1987 a proposal was made to my company to buy a fax machine at a time when they were just entering the market. My board of management considered the question and decided not to buy one. I remember thinking at the time that the decision not to buy fitted in well with my personal ambition to cut down on the amount of paper we were using in running our business. My approach was to engage in talk rather than in sending memos. Within a few months we realised we had made a mistake because we were in a world - 12 or 13 years ago - that did its business by fax. I offer that story to the Minister by way of gently encouraging her. No matter how ingrained in the past her officials and perhaps she may be, there is always hope of change in the future. I hope the next time she introduces legislation to this House it will be fit for the 21st century and does not seek to live in the past. However, I do not want to wait until then. We have an opportunity to proceed with this Bill and, therefore, I urge the Minister to accept these amendments. Dr. Henry: I have pleasure in seconding the amendment. When Senator Quinn and I tabled these amendments I was sure they would be accepted. I could not see any reason why they would not be because similar amendments to other Bills have been accepted. I cannot believe that the Minister cannot accept them simply because she does not want to return the Bill to the Dáil before Christmas. That could be done in ten minutes. From the outset of its term of office the Government has talked about openness and transparency. These amendments are an encouragement of that philosophy. The Minister rightly said that future Ministers are not precluded from publishing on the Internet via electronic means. These amendments require them to do so. Like Senator Quinn and other Senators I believe that giving information to people at every opportunity improves rather than disimproves our democracy. I cannot understand why the legislation does not provide that the most modern methods of imparting information be availed of. With due respect, who reads Iris Oifigiúil? It is not something with which the public is familiar. The people we need to make sure have information are those who can have access to it on the Internet anywhere. It will not take ten minutes of the Minister's time to return the Bill to the Dáil with these amendments, where I am sure they would be accepted. I ask her to accept them. They are realistic and forward looking. Labhrás Ó Murchú: Like Senator Quinn I acknowledge the Minister's ready availability and accessibility in ensuring the effective and expeditious processing of this Bill. The Minister's availability has been a hallmark of her term of office, as many in this House have acknowledged. Senator Quinn's amendments are narrowly focused, which is a tribute to the Minister because it shows she has got the main thrust of the Bill correct. That was acknowledged by all sides of the House during the initial debate on the Bill. The same amendments are now being tabled again. I acknowledge Senator Quinn's expertise in these matters and the foresight he has demonstrated on many occasions. However, we must focus on the people of rural Ireland who are at the front line in terms of wildlife. I am a product of rural Ireland as I come from the town of Cashel which can boast of a population of only 3,000 people. Will the method of advertising get to the people to whom it matters? I have no doubt it will. If I was asked what was the main medium for the people of rural Ireland, I would say the local newspaper. A person may miss a copy of a daily newspaper or the nine o'clock news on television, but if he or she does not get the local newspaper, he or she will miss out on something. This Bill is a masterful exercise in motivation. The people at whom the Bill is directed will be quick to accept what is proposed. We discussed the last day why motivation is necessary in this Bill. I spoke on this matter because I felt that if the Minister had approached the legislation in a more doctrinaire and punitive manner, we would have failed in the Bill's aim to achieve partnership in terms of our wildlife while, at the same time, looking after and harmonising our national aspirations with our international obligations. It is important to motivate people at local level. One must put down a marker and that is where the legislation comes in. It has been drafted in a balanced and fair way. I am a little surprised Senator Quinn is so determined, given his contributions in the House in the past. When he started his address today he was cautious and reserved. However, that changed gradually as his contribution continued. I am sure it could be attributed to passion, which I admire in people. When he focused on the Minister in the early part of his address he was not prepared to make a statement about her reason for not accepting his amendments. He raised questions, but as he continued he spoke about the Minister squirming with embarrassment. He knows that is not correct. Anyone who knows the Minister as I do knows her mettle. She does not easily squirm with embarrassment. Mr. Quinn: Not so easily. Labhrás Ó Murchú: I was surprised the tone of his address tended to change, but I am sure it could be attributed to passion. Does Senator Quinn believe the method proposed in the legislation will achieve what it is intended to achieve or is he making a case for information technology? That might be what he is doing. He made the same learned and informed contribution on many other Bills and he spoke about electronic advantages. However, it is more important to focus on this Bill. I have no doubt we could have a broader debate on this issue. Does the Senator believe the Bill as it stands will achieve its purpose? I have no doubt it will. It is democracy in action to table these amendments again. However, I am sure the Senator will acknowledge they have a narrow focus for such an important Bill. We have waited a long time for this Bill. I am sure Senator Quinn agrees that the Minister was one of the foremost speakers when she was in opposition on the necessity for this Bill. It is not a case of inheriting it in her portfolio. She feels passionately about this Bill and I am sure the Senator will acknowledge that. Mr. Quinn: I have done so already. Labhrás Ó Murchú: That is important. Perhaps we could have a broader debate on this issue in the near future. I am anxious that this Bill be enacted as quickly as possible so we can deal with the dangers confronting wildlife. We might get tied up in semantics, although I am not saying Senator Quinn is doing that. One of the most learned and appropriate contributions in the House the last day was made by Senator Farrell, although he got little publicity for it. Like Senator Quinn, he spoke with passion about the dangers for wildlife. He wanted to know why there is a lack of food for wildlife and why certain species are endangered. There was so much common sense in what he said I almost wish it could be recorded and used. We must tap into the common sense of the people of rural Ireland. If we do not succeed, all the aspirations, plans and legislation will not achieve what we specifically want to achieve. I am talking not only about the protection of our wildlife but about an appreciation and enhancement of our wildlife and of the environment which is essential for our wildlife. I would prefer if the amendments were focused on that because it would broaden the debate and help us to inform the public that what we are asking for here is the partnership I mentioned. Members know there are grave dangers and that this matter is urgent. It is not just about harmonising our laws with our international obligations but about our love for wildlife. When one species disappears, we will wonder how it happened and why we did not put down a marker. That is what the Minister and the Department are doing in this Bill. We do not want to have to ask in five or ten years' time why we did not see what was happening to an endangered species. While the amendments will be debated, it is essential to put on the record that the Minister has done an excellent job and she has got it right. The fact that the amendments have a narrow focus is a tribute to the fact that the Minister has got the legislation right. I know Senator Quinn will want to revisit a comment or two he made about the Minister and correct the record in that regard. Mr. Costello: I presume I will also get the opportunity to make a Second Stage speech. No one in the House disagrees with the substance of this Bill. The Minister has done a good day's work in protecting our wildlife and we all applaud that. It is our function as legislators to seek to improve areas where we believe there are gaps in the manner in which the legislation will be implemented. Senator Quinn has tabled a reasonable set of amendments in relation to communicating to the public the actions being taken by the Minister. The Minister has stuck to the traditional means of communication in the Bill, that is, publication in Irish Oifigiúil and local newspapers and on local radio stations. All this is extremely desirable but there are other means of communication, electronic communication, which is readily accessible to all and sundry. This type of communication is becoming more and more accessible. Many farmers throughout the country have a computer. If one is looking for a job, one is quite likely to enter an Internet café in the city. If one wishes to travel, to find a cheap holiday or some business angle, it is all on the website. The Internet provides all these facilities and more and more sites are being established. There is an onus on every Department to establish a website, keep it up to date and in line with legislation. This is not just a technical point. There is a responsibility on the Minister to ensure that the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands has an adequate website database to communicate the provisions of the legislation in relation to designated natural heritage areas. In designating natural heritage areas, the Minister must make the information available to the public. Subsequent issuing of orders must also be publicised to those who will be directly affected if a natural heritage area is designated in a particular area. The public at large must also be informed because natural heritage areas are of interest to everyone on the island. This information cannot be limited to local newspapers or radio stations, it must be more widely disseminated. This is a serious flaw in the legislation because the Minister is limiting the information to at least one local radio station or one local newspaper. There is no reference to the national newspapers. There is more than one local newspaper in many instances. This information relates not only to the local population directly adjacent to the designated natural heritage area. There will be other impacts of the designations in the future such as the protection of flora and fauna, commercial shooting and so on which must also be publicised. I support totally Senators Henry and Quinn's amendments and I cannot understand why they cannot be incorporated in the legislation. If Senator Quinn decides to put the amendments to a vote, they are rejected and the Minister is not prepared to go back to the Dáil, I see no point in moving my amendments and wasting time. If the Minister has not got an open mind to consider what I regard as an imminently reasonable set of amendments, we are going through a charade. I am pleased the Minister is here in person. On the Order of Business, Senator Ross complained that very often Ministers with other portfolios come to this House to deal with issues with which they are not totally au fait. That is not fair to the Minister or the House. I compliment the Minister on being in this House throughout the entire debate on the legislation. However, if she is not willing to consider reasonable amendments, that is extremely disappointing. I would have expected the Minister to give the amendments a proper hearing on Committee Stage, come back on Report Stage and either accept them or table her own amendments. If the amendments are rejected out of hand and there is no positive response, the only conclusion we can come to is what Senator Norris suggested on Committee Stage. I hope this is not the case and I appeal to the Minister, even at this eleventh hour, to accept this set of amendments. Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands (Miss de Valera): There is nothing in the Bill to preclude the publication of information by electronic means where it is considered appropriate, therefore, there is no need to incorporate the amendments in the Bill. In certain cases, this would weaken the Bill. I acknowledge and welcome the fact that information technology is rapidly becoming more generally accessible and that it will play an enhanced role in our lives as time goes on. A time will come when the information super highway, to which I have occasionally heard Senator Norris refer on radio, will pass through all our livingrooms. However, this has not yet happened, nor will it happen for a number of years. I look forward to the day when it does happen. As Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, I fully support the Government's commitment to the development of information technology. Indeed, since my appointment as Minister, I have more than doubled the staffing of my Department's information technology unit to improve communications within my Department and externally. I am keenly aware of the need to improve and enhance communications among my officials who are spread across the length and breadth of the country. Our improved communication network has greatly helped in our day-to-day operations. I am also focused on the importance of improving communication between my Department and the public to ensure that relevant information is easily accessible. The Department's website is of particular value in this regard. For example, the website is used for listing special areas of conservation. However, our site needs improvement and I have sought proposals from consultants to undertake a complete redesign of the site. What the Senators are proposing can already be done, where appropriate, under the Bill as it stands, without a need for amendments. My view is that these amendments are not essential in all cases and inappropriate in some. What we are talking about here is legislation intended to protect our natural heritage. In legislation generally, an obligation is often placed on a Minister to publish in Irish Oifigiúil certain information where legal decisions are taken. This Bill provides for such publication, where appropriate. Publication in Irish Oifigiúil is essentially a legal device, as publication in Iris Oifigiúil effectively indicates to the Judiciary that the Minister has fulfilled his or her responsibility under the relevant section of the legislation. It is not generally contended that it is an effective means of informing the public. There are many ways of informing the public of legislative developments. I do not believe it is necessary to list comprehensively in a Bill every way in which the information shall be disseminated. If I believed that the proposed amendments identified any fundamental deficiency in the Bill that would impact on the protection of our natural heritage, I would be amenable to reconsidering my position on them. However, I do not believe this is the case. The Bill sets out the minimum publicity that is required in each circumstance, and each circumstance is different. The Bill does not preclude any manner of disseminating information. With regard to the amendment to section 16(5), this will oblige me to publish electronically the relevant information where it has not been possible to contact an owner, occupier or other person who would be affected by a decision to propose a site for designation as an NHA. Section 16(5) is not intended as a means of notifying the public in general of proposals to designate sites as NHAs but to contact individuals on whom the proposed designation directly impacts. Section 16(5) sets down a comprehensive proactive notification procedure which will target those most likely to be affected by the proposed designation, such as farmers, local residents, business interests and local authorities. I do not believe it would be essential for the purpose of the notification procedure to put such information on a website. This would place the onus on people to access the website, which I do not believe to be the correct approach. However, I have no difficulty in general information relating to NHAs being available on the Department's site. The same principle applies to amendment No. 3. This amendment relates to section 18(4)(a), which deals with a situation where a decision is made to amend or revoke an NHA designation order. A comprehensive notification procedure is provided for and this is again aimed at those most likely to be affected by the designation. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the publication of the information on my website, if deemed appropriate at a future date, but I believe the provisions of section 18 are more than adequate. With regard to amendment No. 10, which relates to section 36(8), the position is clear. There is an enabling provision that will allow the Minister to publish the list of commercial shoot operator permit holders from time to time. To give effect to this section, it will be necessary to make regulations after the enactment of the Bill. I have already given firm commitments that I will consult fully with interested parties in the completion of these regulations and the operation of this section. The manner and frequency under which a list of permanent holders will be published will be one of the issues addressed during such consultations. If I were to accept this amendment, I would be pre-determining an issue that will be subject to discussion. I am anxious to ensure that the good working relationship that has been established with the relevant bodies during the drafting of the Bill will be maintained and I want to leave subsection (8) as open as possible, pending the outcome of the discussions to which I refer. However, the option is there to publish such lists on the website if considered appropriate. With regard to amendment No. 11, which relates to section 51(a), Senators are proposing to amend the provisions governing the illegal advertisement of fauna. The provision, as drafted, is clear in that it states that a person "shall not publish or cause to be published any advertisement". I am completely satisfied that publication by electronic means is fully comprehended by that wording. This provision is clear and all-embracing. In this section there is specific danger in detailing electronic means in that the illegality of employing a measure not mentioned could then be called into question. In effect, if we were to insert the Senators' proposal, it may, by highlighting one particular form of publication, create a weakness in relation to any other type of publication not specified. In short, the amendment could weaken the Bill. Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 pertain to sections 56 and 57 which deal, respectively, with the import and export of flora and fauna to and from the EU. The Senators are seeking that where the Minister decides to designate or amend or revoke a designation of a port or airport through which the import or export of flora and fauna is permitted, it should be published by electronic means as well as in Iris Oifigiúil. The primary function of the existing provision is to act as a legal device. I have the option to publish material electronically or by any other means for the purpose of informing the wider public. However, I do not consider that this should be a legal requirement. The purpose of section 58 is to allow Ireland to ratify the UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, CITES. Amendment No. 14 proposes to amend subsection (2)(a) which empowers the Minister to designate additional management authorities with responsibility in relation to the management of CITES. Subsection (2)(d) specifies that the Minister will publish in Iris Oifigiúil notice of any designations or amendments or revocation of such designations. Again, if I consider it necessary and appropriate to publish any further notice, I may use any method deemed appropriate including electronic means. I wish to summarise my position on these amendments. I am actively supportive of information technology developments and will use IT where appropriate to improve my Department's work and to facilitate its customers. It is rather ironic for Senators to make charges which try to infer that I have no interest or am rather backward in my approach to developments in technology or do not realise the importance of technology in the modern world. As already stated, I support fully the work the Government is doing in this area. The fact that I have specific responsibility for broadcasting and the introduction of digitalisation in that sector shows not only my obligations but also my deep interest in technological developments. It is somewhat disingenuous of Senators to try to imply an image of my Department, my officials or myself as being a little slow in accepting technological change. The Bill as drafted outlines only the minimum level of notification and publication. This relates to the issue raised this morning by at least one Senator, namely, the importance of making known the contents of the legislation to those it primarily affects. I live in Ennis, which is the information age town, and Members must be practical and realise that, as we speak, the kind of access to technology that may be available in Ennis is not available in other areas. Whereas we would wish to promote and further the acceptance of information technology and ensure that there is no question that a two-tier IT society comprising the information rich and the information poor will be created. We must take a practical approach to this matter. As matters stand, it is most important to ensure that appropriate information is published in local newspapers. However, I re-emphasise the fact that electronic means can still be used in the context of disseminating information under this legislation. Ministers have the option, at all times, to notify people or disseminate information by electronic means. The proposed amendments do not suggest taking any action which cannot already be taken under the Bill as drafted. They are not necessary and, in certain cases, they are inappropriate. As stated earlier, there is also a danger that they could weaken the Bill. Senator Costello seemed to suggest that I have come before the House without an open mind. I assure Members that I take the work of the Dáil and the Seanad extremely seriously. The amendments that have been tabled on this Bill, either in the Dáil or Seanad, or in connection with any other Bill with which I have been associated, have been given every consideration. Senators will appreciate that I am not always in a position to either accept or agree to amendments that have been tabled. However, such amendments are given every consideration before I reach a decision. It is not a question of my wishing to rush this Bill or any other through the Houses of the Oireachtas. I have more respect than that for our institutions. I hope Senators will recognise that, as a matter of principle, I have considered carefully the amendments before us. I cannot accept them because I genuinely believe that the provisions in the Bill offer the best way forward and do not preclude any method of disseminating information by technological means. In my opinion, the general thrust displayed in this part of the Bill is the best route to take. We have been awaiting the introduction and passage of this Bill for over 16 years. It was long promised but did not see the light of day until now. In all my discussions with individuals and groups who have shown an intense interest in this Bill, the issues, content and substance of the Bill were raised. The question of the dissemination of information, which has been raised by some Senators, was not seen as a priority by those immediately involved in wildlife issues. The Bill provides an opportunity to use new technologies as access to them becomes more readily available. I cannot accept the proposed amendments. Mr. Quinn: I rise in sadness because I am disappointed the Minister has failed to address a number of the points I raised. In her response she again used the word I had criticised. Six times in her reply the Minister used the word "preclude", saying nothing in the Bill precluded the use of electronic technology. The point of the amendments is to insist that future Ministers use modern technology. The Minister has shown her confidence, her faith and her commitment to the elements of what is sought. I am concerned that Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú seemed to suggest that I had not acknowledged the Minister's commitment. On Second Stage we praised the Minister for what she is trying to achieve. I am disappointed because these amendments are an attempt to improve the Bill. Senator Ó Murchú reminded us that we have waited a long time for this Bill, which he wants to see expeditiously enacted. After 16 years, would an extra ten minutes in the Dáil be an unreasonable delay? All amendments passed in the Seanad must be returned to the Dáil. The Minister has not answered my criticisms. It is not enough to say nothing in the Bill precludes a Minister from using electronic means. The amendments are intended to force Ministers in the future to use the various means of disseminating information which are already the methods of the present rather than the future. Those of us who have children know they no longer write letters. Few of them read newspapers, apart from the sports pages. However, my children e-mail me from all around the world. They use the Internet to get information and read The Irish Times without buying the newspaper. I am not talking about the future. This is happening now. I was disappointed to hear the Minister refer to Ennis and say that what is happening there is not yet happening in the rest of the country. It is happening in the rest of the country. What is happening in Ennis is not the future. It is the present for a large number of people. In Singapore, every citizen has been given an e-mail address because that country wishes to become the electronic centre of Asia. We have already announced that we wish to become the electronic hub of Europe. It is not out of the question that what we urge the Minister to do could be done within a year. We are talking about the present, not the future. We wish to ensure that Ministers of the future will not be able to restrict information by saying it may only appear in newspapers and be heard on local radio stations. When I was chairman of An Post in 1986 we had never heard of the fax machine. We made a five year plan in 1986 without knowing of the existence of a threat to the letter writing of the future. We were out of touch. In 1890, when the Bell telephone company was setting up in the United States, the Postmaster General of the United Kingdom was asked if the post office would get into the telephone business. He replied that he saw no future in telephones and besides, he said, "We have messenger boys." I do not insinuate that the Minister is behind the times. I was concerned that Senator Ó Murchú thought I was being personal when I said the Minister would squirm. I was referring to the Minister as the head of a Department. I believe the Minister will squirm with embarrassment when she compares the website of her Department with those of some others. We have a long way to go. The Minister has not touched on the basis of my argument. On a number of occasions she said the option is there if a future Minister considers it appropriate and that it can be done if a Minister wishes to do it. I want to restrict the Minister's freedom to withold this information from the public. If I live in rural Ireland and, in the future, I do not have access to newspapers, I will want to be able to access a website and see the information I need. A large number of people in rural Ireland are already communicating electronically, particularly people younger than I. This is the way, not of the future but of the present. In referring to amendments Nos. 12 and 13, the Minister stated that if a future Minister decides to restrict the importation of certain flora and fauna this must appear in Iris Oifigiúil. How can I find that out? If I miss the announcement in a local newspaper, must I get Iris Oifigiúil? If I am in Donegal, Clare or Kerry that may not be convenient but I can sit at my desk and, within seconds, see what restrictions the Minister has introduced. The amendments are not intended to empower. They are intended to restrict future Ministers. Senator Costello's concern may be correct. The Minister says she has an open mind but she did not accepted a single amendment on Committee Stage in the Seanad and seems unlikely to accept one on Report Stage. These amendments, which are intended to restrict the freedom of future Ministers to withold information from the public, will enhance the legislation and make it suitable for the 21st century, not for the 19th and 20th centuries. There is not a single Deputy who would delay these measures or vote against them. If the Minister were to bring the Bill back to the Dáil to make amendments to restrict the right of a future Minister to withhold information by not insisting it be put on the Internet, no Luddite in the Dáil would vote against such a measure or delay it. Mr. Connor: I would not be too sure of that. Mr. Quinn: It would be accepted that citizens have a right to access information and the Dáil would enable the public to have information in the most realistic and forward looking way. 12 o'clock I urge the Minister to reject the assumption that because people got information from local papers in the 20th century they will continue to do so in the 21st. Let us include local newspapers and local radio stations but let us also include the means of getting information which is favoured by so many people now. Let us improve democracy by improving every Bill that comes through the House, particularly this very worthwhile Bill. Senator Ó Murchú was concerned that I had not complimented the Minister on the Bill. This is great legislation and I welcome it. Senator Gibbons and Senator Farrell spoke from the heart about it last week and it was a joy to hear them and the Minister's enthusiasm for the Bill. We are trying to improve the legislation, but that will not happen if the amendments are rejected. I urge the Minister to reconsider them. Amendment put. The Seanad divided: Tá, 17; Níl, 22. Tá Burke, Paddy. Caffrey, Ernie. Connor, John. Coogan, Fintan. Cosgrave, Liam T. Costello, Joe. Doyle, Joe. Hayes, Tom. Henry, Mary. Jackman, Mary. Keogh, Helen. McDonagh, Jarlath. Manning, Maurice. O'Dowd, Fergus. Quinn, Feargal. Ross, Shane. Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine. Níl Bohan, Eddie. Callanan, Peter. Cassidy, Donie. Chambers, Frank. Cox, Margaret. Cregan, John Dardis, John. Farrell, Willie. Finneran, Michael. Fitzgerald, Liam. Fitzgerald, Tom. Fitzpatrick, Dermot. Gibbons, Jim. Kiely, Rory. Leonard, Ann. Moylan, Pat. O'Brien, Francis. O'Donovan, Denis. Ó Fearghail, Seán. Ó Murchú, Labhrás. Ormonde, Ann. Walsh, Jim. Tellers: Tá, Senators Henry and Quinn; Níl, Senators T. Fitzgerald and Gibbons. Amendment declared lost. Debate adjourned.

Wildlife (Amendment) Bill, 1999: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage.

Mr. Costello: I move amendment No. 2:

In page 19, line 30, after "measures" to insert "including management plans".

Dr. Henry: I second the amendment.

Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands (Miss de Valera): The amendment proposed by the Senators is not well founded for two reasons. First, it would be superfluous and, second, it would very much weaken the protection for NHAs. An NHA order may include whatever provisions are required to provide for the conservation of the site, including stipulations concerning the management of the site. Therefore, there is no need to make specific reference to management plans.

Furthermore, in addition to management plans, there are various other types of plans or protective measures which could well be relevant to the conservation of an NHA. Examples include habitat conservation guidelines, commonage framework plans, individual farm plans and aquaculture zoning plans. If a reference to management plans is included, it would be necessary to refer to all other potential conservation measures. It is not appropriate, nor would it be a wise course of action to detail all these in primary legislation. One danger of detailing such a list is that the validity of employing a measure not included on the list could be called into question. Additionally, it is possible that further types of conservation measures which are not in existence at this time could be devised at a future date. Therefore, I cannot agree to include a reference to management plans as sought by the Senators because to do so is not only unnecessary, but it would ultimately weaken the protection afforded to NHAs by limiting the range of conservation measures the Minister could employ to ensure the conservation of natural heritage areas.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

Mr. Connor: I move amendment No. 4:

In page 20, line 3, after "works" to insert "excluding turf cutting privately undertaken for domestic purposes".

Amendment No. 4 proposes to amend section 19 and it also has relevance to section 20. I am attempting to protect turf cutting in areas where the bog, or area of peat, is in an NHA or an SAC, although there are separate regulations for SACs. As the Minister knows, this has been a controversial issue in relation to the designation of SACs. People in western counties, in particular, have engaged in the timeless practice of cutting their own turf for their domestic heating purposes. They found that under the regulations made for the special areas of conservation this practice had to cease, although the Minister intervened at a later stage to allow a period of ten years by which time people who cut or extracted turf for their own use would have to find alternative means.

I welcome the designation of NHAs. There are many sensitive areas that need to be designated as natural heritage areas. I support that power being put into law. Turf cutting is taking place in many of the areas that will be designated in counties such as Mayo, Roscommon, Galway and Clare, the Minister's constituency. The Minister of State, Deputy Ó Cuív, will know much about it because the practice is very prevalent is his constituency. It may be an out of fashion practice but it is timeless and is important to thousands of people, particularly in the western counties.

It was interesting to note what the Minister had to say in relation to orders she made after the SAC designations. She made an order in relation to blanket bogs and a separate one for raised bogs. In respect of the order on turf cutting for raised bogs under SAC she said:

Most damage to SACs is caused by industrial and commercial operations. Cutting for industrial and commercial purposes in these bogs must cease before the 1999 cutting season. In exceptional cases, to protect employment the Minister may agree to allow cutting in 1999 where the operator has already entered into a formal agreement with the Department. The Department will then transfer the operations to non-SAC sites and will cease operations within the SAC at an early date.

In the case of domestic cutters [this is the interesting and important point] it is clear that despite the fact that there are much more users than individual and commercial operators, the damage done to the bogs by an individual in a year is small in most situations.

The Minister has acknowledged that the amount of damage caused by a domestic cutter is small in most situations. I have been careful to state it is turf cut for domestic purposes only. That point is repeated in the order she made on 8 March 1999 in relation to turf cutting on blanket bogs which states:

There are, of course, some relatively small areas of blanket bog where turf is now being cut which will have to remain within the boundaries of the SACs because total cutting in these areas would lead to damage of the more sensitive areas of the bog. In almost all of these areas people who have been cutting for their own domestic use may continue to cut the amount of turf needed for their own use for up to ten years to allow them time to make new arrangements.

I want to protect the right to cut turf for one's own domestic purposes in an area of bog belonging to a landowner or farmer where that land may be designated a natural heritage area. I raise no objection to these areas being designated natural heritage areas. There is a timeless practice of turf cutting. The Minister has acknowledged in her statement of February 1999 and in her statement on blanket bogs in March 1999 blanket that the amount of damage caused is very small. If the Bill proceeds to become an Act, without this insertion which makes an exemption for turf cutting, it will be defined as works and it will be illegal to do any excavations, digging or removals from the site. Section 19 defines works and put limits on the works that can and cannot be done; mostly it refers to works that cannot be done. We noted last week that local authorities are exempted. A local authority can cause serious damage and change to a natural heritage area if, for example, it wants to realign a road passing through such an area. It appears local authorities can carry out major excavations on a natural heritage area for any other reason, perhaps to place a sewage treatment works in such an area or in pursuance of any other works in which it may be involved. I have no doubt the Minister understands what I am seeking because she has constituents who would have raised this matter with her. I merely ask that turf cutting for domestic purposes only be exempted where references to works appear in sections 19 and 20 of the Bill. Dr. Henry: The Minister's thesis is quite right in regard to what she is trying to do. This group of people will become smaller and smaller and it is not as if they will be a growing problem. I have not noticed the youth of Ireland going into turf cutting at a terrific rate. This group will become less of a factor. I suggest some of them will, unwittingly, infringe the legislation. They will not have the famous electronic means of getting information. Given that this will not be a great problem the Minister should accept the amendment. Mr. Costello: I support this reasonable and appropriate amendment. This is the type of work that will be carried out in the bogs of Ireland in the future, despite the concerns of Senator Henry that the younger generation is not likely to take up turf cutting in great numbers. Nevertheless, there are turbary rights throughout the country. Much of the land that is likely to be designated as natural heritage areas is likely to include some bogland because it has that type of flora and fauna which is part of our natural heritage. While the Minister includes in the legislation an interesting clause under which works may not be carried out, namely, works "which are liable to destroy or to significantly alter, damage or interfere with the features", presumably work that would not alter or damage the features significantly could be carried out. Can the Minister give a cast iron guarantee that private cutting of turf for domestic purposes would be covered by that clause? Obviously it could be argued that cutting turf over decades would alter the shape and character of a landscape. Nevertheless, given that the private cutting of turf for domestic purposes is a time honoured tradition and that turf is the normal fuel used in many areas and is not produced on a commercial basis, the Minister should specifically exempt this type of work from those which are precluded in natural heritage areas. This matter will remain a grey area if the Minister does not accept an amendment of this nature. Mr. Moylan: I do not agree with the amendment simply because of my experience of what has happened in the past in the area I represent. The Department purchased existing bog and gave those who wished to cut turf the opportunity to relocate in areas that were not affected by the relevant NHA or SAC. The Minister bent over backwards in allowing those who did not wish to relocate to cut for a further ten years in those locations. There is no danger that people will be prevented from cutting turf. They will be afforded an opportunity to cut turf at another location if the one they are using is part of an natural heritage area. While that option exists, as it has been in the past, there will not be a problem and I oppose this amendment. Mr. Quinn: I cannot add to Senator Connor's contribution. I hoped the Minister would accept my amendment because we are talking about domestic purposes only. It seems quite likely that in a natural heritage area there may have been, as Senator Connor mentioned, timeless rights or rights over many generations. As Senator Henry said, fewer people will become involved in this activity in the years ahead. It would be a shame to lose these rights for domestic purposes only. We are not talking about commercial use and I urge the Minister to accept my amendment. Miss de Valera: The Senator's amendment concerns the overall framework to be put in place for the conservation of areas of natural heritage, with particular regard to peat extraction from bogs. I will outline the context in which peatlands and the conservation of nationally important bogs should be considered. There is no doubt that peatlands are among the most important wildlife areas in Ireland. This is true of both blanket and raised bogs. Being so familiar with bogs it is often difficult for us in Ireland to fully appreciate their significance on a global level. Most people take them for granted. Ireland contains some of the best remaining examples of raised bogs in Europe. In the EU context, we are practically unique in still having intact active raised bogs. On the world stage Ireland's raised bogs are probably the most extensive of their type. Ireland supports 8% of the world's blanket bog, more than any European country. One particular type of blanket bog, lowland blanket bog, occurs only in Ireland and Scotland. Unfortunately, the scale of damage and loss of both types of bog has been significant. The sad reality is that 80% to 90% of Ireland's raised and blanket bogs have been degraded or destroyed over the past number of years. Of the original area of 300,000 hectares of raised bog in the country only about 6% remains with less than 2% in quality condition. This represents a significant loss of our natural heritage and of the global natural resource. The recently concluded OECD environmental performance review of Ireland provides a broad snapshot of environmental and nature conservation issues in Ireland. The critical importance of Irish peatlands was highlighted in this review. The two main recommendations in relation to nature conservation was to ensure effective protection of designated nature protection areas and to give particular attention to protecting peat bogs of great ecological significance. Clearly, our remaining bogs are important and we must strive to conserve them. Obviously the extraction of turf impacts on peatlands. We are not focusing on all peatlands but on those which are recognised as being of national significance and which deserve protection in the common good. It is not tenable to suggest that extraction of turf, even for domestic purposes, should be completely unrestrained in such critically important habitats. The core purpose of designated NHAs is to conserve our most important natural heritage sites. Neither I nor any other Minister could be expected to stand over legislation allowing the destruction of these irreplaceable sites. At the same time I appreciate the tradition of turf cutting for domestic use in Ireland. Many people have fond memories of their exploits in the bog. Turf cutting adventures feature extensively in our literature, songs and art. Therefore, while recognising the imperative of protecting important sites I intend to adopt a fair approach to the issue of small scale domestic turf cutting. The aim is to achieve a balance between the needs of the people on the ground and the conservation of this nation's heritage. It is my intention to devise, in consultation with relevant interests, a set of arrangements to deal with peat extraction in NHAs as has already been done in relation to SACs. I am conscious of the social and economic impact an immediate cessation of turf cutting could have on small communities. This will inform my work in bringing forward practical arrangements for domestic peat extraction. I regard it as wholly wrong to include a blanket exemption for private domestic turf cutting in the legislation. Many people will agree to cease cutting in the short term. The extraction of turf by other people in NHAs could be brought to a conclusion over a period of years. General lifestyle changes will facilitate progress in that regard over the extended period - a point was made by Senators this morning. I will recap on the situation with regard to the SACs because I know Senator Connor has a particular interest in them. Senator Moylan mentioned that my Department has given a great amount of attention to raised and blanket bogs. Members will be aware of the compensation arrangements that I have put in place. They are good, fair and significant. There is also a question of the choice of relocation. Those who wish to continue to cut turf for domestic use and will be able to do so for another eight years. There was a derogation, if one wishes to use that term, from the very start. I wanted to ensure that there was a fair balance between the conservation of our bogs and the tradition of domestic turf cutting. I made the point, and I think it is an obvious one, that a great deal of damage was done to the bogs where the industrial and commercial sectors were concerned. It is a different situation for domestic cutters and that is why I was able to ensure that they can continue turf cutting until 2008. The compensation available is generous. Arbitration is available on compensation amounts because we wanted to be fair and open about all of the procedures. There are the relocation arrangements that Senator Moylan and others referred to. There has been a largely positive response from domestic cutters. To date a sum of £3 million has been paid in compensation to a substantial number of people who ceased domestic turf cutting. I have attempted to ensure that any arrangements made for NHAs will proceed on foot of a great deal of consultation. The procedures put in place for SACs have been fair and given people an opportunity to continue domestic cutting for a number of years to come. I know that the proposal here is to ensure that turf cutting could continue without any time limits. However, I hope that in my reply to the amendments this morning I have outlined that we are only talking about special areas of conservation or natural heritage areas. These areas have a particular significance. We have done our utmost to ensure that there has been a fair approach to this issue. The statistics show that bogs are under threat and it is important, therefore, to introduce balanced and fair measures to ensure there is conservation while at the same time taking account of the wishes of those who wish to continue with domestic turf cutting. My approach is the best that can be achieved under the Habitats Directive. Mr. Connor: I am grateful for the assurances given by the Minister that there will be consultation with communities affected by the extension of NHAs to areas where turf cutting takes place and who are not already affected by the SAC directive. The problem is that the Minister will hold all the cards when she goes to negotiate. The people involved are beaten from the start because the legislation has placed a blanket ban on works. The Minister will always be able to wave the big stick of the law against them if they do not settle on her conditions. I know that sounds harsh and I appreciate what the Minister did in relation to the compensation package for SACs. However, the majority of the people who wish to continue cutting turf are not satisfied with the compensation that has been put in place because most of them have nothing to do with it. They wanted to continue this timeless practice and right to cut turf where they have turbary rights and full turbary ownership. We are interfering with what is often an absolute right. Most people would have no difficulty with the extension of the protection of an NHA to these sensitive areas. This practice is acknowledged in several statements by the Minister as causing little damage. The Minister made points about the 80% or 90% destruction of bogs to reinforce the argument against small domestic turf cutters. Let us deal with all the facts here. Some 80% or 90% of it has been extracted or destroyed by a State agency, Bord na Móna, over the past 60 years of its operations. It has been the main agent for extracting peat from the bogs of Ireland. It is responsible for altering at least 80% of the bogs. I would be amazed if domestic turf cutting amounted to more than 10% of the destruction over the generations. Bord na Móna is continuing its operations and gives very valuable employment.

I am not old enough to remember the war years. However, in the 1940s the Minister's grandfather, who was the then Taoiseach, and the Minister for supplies, Mr. Lemass, used the bogs extensively to meet the fuel supply shortage during the war. It was in those years that we lost so much of our raised and blanket bogs. I know people who would be ashamed to say they own bogs because they associate them with poverty and deprivation. They would turn their heads the other way when they passed them. However, we recognise that they are very important archaeological sites. I am sorry I have to press this amendment to a vote. While I recognise that the Minister is willing to enter negotiations with the communities, their great disadvantage will be that the Minister will have enacted legislation which will state that any works they carry out will be illegal. That is a great disadvantage for anyone coming to negotiate with the Minister, notwithstanding her generosity. I acknowledge fully that the Minister will approach this with generosity, but she will be advised by officials who may take a different view. We must not forget the economic importance of turf to many people. We live in an age of rapidly increasing oil prices. Thousands of people in rural Ireland still depend on peat or turf for their domestic heating and cooking, in many cases, however old fashioned that might sound. I cannot accept the Minister's arguments. I would accept some amendment of the wording in my amendment. I would be willing to accept the application of the Minister's ten year rule, so that turf cutting for domestic purposes could continue for at least ten years. That is guaranteed under the SAC regulation but it is not yet guaranteed to anybody under the NHA regulation, although there is some promise in what the Minister said. Senator Moylan and the Minister made the point that relocation was important. That was a total failure. People were offered relocation to alternative sites. However, the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, which is the successor of the Irish Land Commission and holds most of the State owned bogs, told people to go to totally unserviced and inappropriate areas. The Land Commission advised people to move to sites which were fairly pristine and virgin and were imminent candidates for becoming NHAs. It was completely wrong to allocate to people portions of bog in such areas. The number of people who accepted relocation was minuscule, if not zero. Amendment put. The Seanad divided: Tá, 18; Níl, 22. Tá Burke, Paddy. Caffrey, Ernie. Connor, John. Coogan, Fintan. Cosgrave, Liam T. Costello, Joe. Cregan, Denis (Dino). Doyle, Joe. Hayes, Tom. Henry, Mary. Jackman, Mary. Keogh, Helen. McDonagh, Jarlath. O'Dowd, Fergus. Quinn, Feargal. Ridge, Thérèse. Ross, Shane. Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine. Níl Bohan, Eddie. Callanan, Peter. Chambers, Frank. Cregan, John Dardis, John. Farrell, Willie. Finneran, Michael. Fitzgerald, Liam. Fitzgerald, Tom. Fitzpatrick, Dermot. Gibbons, Jim. Kett, Tony. Kiely, Daniel. Kiely, Rory. Leonard, Ann. Moylan, Pat. O'Brien, Francis. O'Donovan, Denis. Ó Fearghail, Seán. Ó Murchú, Labhrás. Ormonde, Ann. Walsh, Jim. Tellers: Tá, Senators Burke and Coogan; Níl, Senators T. Fitzgerald and Gibbons. Amendment declared lost. 1 o'clock Mr. Costello: I move amendment No. 5: In page 20, line 24, after "and" to insert "the owner, occupier or user as the case may be has after the expiration of the said period of 6 months given the Minister 14 days' further notice of the intention to carry out or cause or permit to be carried out the works concerned and". Mr. Connor: I second the amendment. Miss de Valera: The Bill provides that a landowner must notify the Minister if he or she wishes to carry out work on a designated NHA. The Minister can either prohibit such work or agree to it being carried out. If the Minister does neither within six months of being notified, the landowner can proceed with the work. My view is that it is only reasonable that landowners have an assurance that they will have a decision on their proposed works within a specified period. The Attorney General's office is also strongly of this view. I am satisfied that six months is a reasonable period within which to make a decision both from the point of view of the landowner and of the Minister. Senators Costello, O'Meara and Ryan propose that an onus be put on the owners, occupiers or users of the land to give a further 14 days' notice to the Minister at the conclusion of the stipulated six months period for a decision on proposed work in a designated NHA. While I appreciate where the amendment is coming from and that it is motivated by a desire to avoid damaging any NHA, I do not feel it would be satisfactory. It would involve the use of the applicant as part of the management process to ensure that his or her application is not overlooked. This would be unfair. It would be a most unusual approach and would not constitute good legislation. Neither would such drafting be to the liking of the Attorney General's office. There is always the possibility of replies not being issued due to pressure of work, oversight etc. However, I intend to address this through proper management systems in respect of the process in my Department. We intend to put proper management systems in place in the Department. It is not considered proper that the applicant should become part of the management administration system. The Minister will have six months within which to prohibit or agree to proposed works in a designated NHA. The six month period is appropriate and, therefore, I do not propose to accept the amendment. Amendment put and declared lost. Mr. Costello: I move amendment No. 6: In page 20, line 32, to delete "3" and substitute "6". Mr. Connor: I second the amendment.

Miss de Valera: This proposal is for the amendment of section 19(2), a provision I inserted on Committee Stage in the other House to enhance the protection to be afforded to proposed NHAs. The provision requires that a person shall not carry out any potentially damaging works in a notified NHA without first giving three months' notice to the Minister. Proceeding with work without giving such notification would constitute an offence. In most cases it will be possible to make the final decision on designation of an NHA within the three month period. Furthermore, section 20 of the Bill enables the Minister to apply to the courts to seek the prohibition of such works. The amendment proposes that the notification period to the Minister before undertaking works in a notified NHA be extended from three to six months. It is considered that the requirement for three months notification amounts to placing a burden on a landowner. The Attorney General's office is clear that any burden placed on a landowner in such circumstances must be reasonable and the legal advice is that the period of three months is appropriate. However, the imposition of a restriction of six months on a landowner runs the danger of being found to be unreasonable and unnecessary. From the prospect of allowing sufficient time to the Minister, a period of three months is adequate to facilitate any necessary action. Three months allows time to the Minister to undertake an assessment of the applications of the proposed works for a notified NHA, to move to designate the site as an NHA, if deemed appropriate, or to proceed to seek a court injunction in the event of it being considered necessary to do so. Accordingly, I do not propose to accept the amendment. Mr. Costello: Perhaps the Minister will clarify a point relating to Senator Connor's amendment which states, "turf cutting privately undertaken for domestic purposes". Is it the case that under section 19 anyone who has turbary rights on a bog must apply to the Minister to do work which is for a domestic purpose? Miss de Valera: If the person in possession of that NHA or piece of bog wishes to carry out such work, he or she must contact the local officials of my Department for advice on how to proceed. We do not want significant damage to be done to the bog. Question, "That the figure proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried. Amendment declared lost. Mr. Costello: I move amendment No. 7: In page 22, line 41, after "Where" to insert ", otherwise than in accordance with section 19,". Mr. Connor: I second the amendment. Miss de Valera: Section 21 provides powers to the Minister to order restoration of damaged natural heritage areas. The Senator has proposed to limit the application of section 21. There is a danger that this amendment could lead to a weakening in the protection afforded to NHAs. Conditions can be attached to a consent issued under section 19 and it is prudent to have the power to order restoration in the event that such conditions are not met. It could happen that a person who obtains consent to carry out works under section 19 does not subsequently abide by the conditions attached to the consent. In such cases, if damage was caused to an NHA, restoration might be appropriate. If the words proposed by the Senators, "otherwise than in accordance with section 19," were inserted into this section, it would leave open the possibility that people could evade having to carry out restoration on the NHAs in cases where restoration would be appropriate. It may be that Senators are concerned about a hypothetical situation where a person might be directed to restore a site after they have carried out works in good faith in accordance with section 19 consent. I assure Senators that it is not the intention that this section should be used in this manner. I have no doubt it would not be proper, nor would it be legally feasible, to give a person consent and then require him or her to restore the site if damage was caused as a result of actions taken on foot of that consent. I cannot accept the amendment as it would lead to a weakening of the protection of natural heritage areas. Amendment put and declared lost. Mr. Costello: I move amendment No. 8: In page 23, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following: 22.-- Where works are carried out on land, an application under section 20 may not be made, nor may a direction under section 21 be given, later than 10 years from the date of the carrying out of the works concerned.". Mr. Connor: I second the amendment. Miss de Valera: This amendment was tabled in the Dáil and on Committee Stage in this House. While the intention of the Senators is understandable, I have examined the suggestion in detail and I cannot accept it is appropriate to incorporate the amendment in the Bill. If adopted, the proposed amendment could give rise to practical difficulties. The essence of this problem is the requirement that would exist to establish definitively when the alleged works within an NHA were carried out. This would necessitate establishing specific dates involved. It would be extremely difficult to prove the exact date or dates when the relevant work was carried out, particularly if a number of years had passed, which is quite likely in the scenario envisaged by the Senators. The obligation on the Minister under the proposed amendment to determine precisely when works were carried out could be used efficiently and effectively by the occupier-owner of the lands to avoid having to restore the lands in question. In the case of alleged damage to NHAs, I will be determined that, when restoration is an option, my Department will act expeditiously to remedy the situation by endeavouring, where appropriate, to have the site restored as soon as reasonably possible. I cannot envisage a situation where more than ten years after the works have allegedly been undertaken my Department would intervene to order the restoration of an NHA. In any event, I expect that after such a period it could prove extremely difficult to restore an NHA. I cannot accept the amendment. Amendment put and declared lost. Mr. Costello: I move amendment No. 9: In page 32, line 49, after "regulations" to insert "which in the opinion of the Minister is fit for commercial exploitation". Mr. Connor: I second the amendment. Miss de Valera: The proposed amendment draws particular attention to one of the principal changes arising from the Bill. Section 32 is a totally new provision which will affect our approach to the conservation of wildlife in Ireland, and it is a provision of which I am particularly proud. Senators may be surprised to note that the Wildlife Act, 1976, actually excluded from its general scope all fish and aquatic and vertebrate species. In practical terms, such an approach at the time meant that tens of thousands of species from both marine and fresh water ecosystems were, strictly speaking, off limits from any conservation consideration. While this may have been understandable in 1976, it would be completely at variance with events today when an ecosystem or holistic-based approach to biodiversity conservation is being adopted. The new Bill brings all wild animal species, as well as wild plant species, within the scope of the Act, apart from certain species relevant to fisheries, whether commercial or recreational, which will be excluded. Section 32 contains a provision which provides for the exclusion of species relevant to fisheries which will, in turn, be specified in regulations to be made under the section. The intention is that species relevant to any type of fishery can be excluded by being listed in the regulations. Species listed are likely to be relevant to existing commercial fisheries and other types of fishing such as sport or recreational fisheries, for example, coarse fish. Species which are not yet subject to commercial exploitation but which are under consideration, or are the subject of trials to investigate the potential for exploitation, or which may become so in the future, may be listed under section 32 regulations. Limiting excludable species, as the amendment proposes, to those fit for commercial exploitation would be overly restrictive. I repeat that the overall change in the scope of the Act to comprehend the vast majority of wild species represents a fundamental departure for wildlife conservation. This broadening of the basis of wildlife legislation is of great significance and establishes a new and comprehensive framework within which the conservation of biodiversity can be addressed and advanced. In the circumstances, I cannot accept the amendment. Amendment put and declared lost. Mr. Quinn: I move amendment No. 10: In page 34, line 44, after "published" to insert ", including by electronic means," Dr. Henry: I second the amendment. Amendment put and declared lost.