Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State and I must agree to disagree. He may have a point about the date and whether it is a little too prescriptive. I take his point that there are woodlands dating from after the 1650 period that could be included. While I would be open to considering that suggestion, I will return with this amendment on Report Stage. This is a forestry Bill, and the fact that some issues may be under the remit of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht is not a reason for not including them in a Bill that deals specifically with forestry. In the context of a Bill that is meant to be fully comprehensive and achieve the sort of balance to which Deputy McNamara referred earlier - between the need to prioritise the protection of the environment and heritage on one side and the need to develop forestry as an industry on the other - not so doing makes little sense to me. It is of critical importance that we place specific obligations on the Minister to protect ancient woodlands, because they have been devastated. There is no argument about that and the State has failed to protect them for lengthy periods. While I acknowledge that the situation has improved somewhat, the best way to ensure there is a change in that regard and to ensure such protection is to include it in a forestry Bill. Consequently, while I will not call a vote on this amendment now, I will come back to it on Report Stage.