Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I want to raise a matter that is in the same vein as the one raised by Deputy McNamara. It relates especially to amendment No. 37, which was ruled out of order because it could pose a potential charge on the Exchequer. If there are circumstances that may arise where a felling licence would be refused on the basis that it was decided, in the common good, that the forest should be maintained - a felling licence may be refused for very good reasons, as has been outlined in a number of submissions, perhaps for environmental reasons, to protect a sensitive waterway, or to have a forestry in particular a place for the common good - it is reasonable to expect that forest should be entitled to some form of compensation and that the Minister should be able to recognise that in the legislation. It is totally unreasonable to think that if we decide as a nation to preserve a particular forest, the owner of that forest, who has invested in it and grown it to the stage where they want to fell it, is told they cannot do so, to go away and that there will be no compensation. I do not see how amendment No. 37 poses a potential charge on the Exchequer. It states "The Minister may [invoke] the provisions of [another section] in certain circumstances". The Minister has entire discretion there. In terms of natural justice, it is a matter we should examine. If it is decided in the public good that a felling licence will not be granted, it is reasonable that the owner of the forest should be compensated for that. The Minister of State should reconsider that aspect.