Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I referred to the issue of compensation on the previous occasion on which we debated the Bill and indicated that I have doubts about whether the refusal of a felling licence without compensation in circumstances where a commercial crop that has been grown with the approval of the State in one form or another is constitutional. I have similar doubts with regard to this section in the context of the removal of vegetation. I am not arguing that the removal of vegetation is for the common good. It is obviously a legitimate exercise, particularly in view of the fact that it protects forests. In order to be lawful at all, any interference with private property must be for the common good. The removal of vegetation, as envisaged, would be for the common good, but I am concerned about the absence of compensation. I accept that what is contained in the Bill mirrors the provisions of the 1946 Act and that there is a presumption of constitutionality in both instruments. However, there have been such presumptions in respect of many matters and these have been overturned by the Supreme Court. I flagged this matter on the previous occasion. When the Minister of State is seeking advice from the Office of the Attorney General on whether it is possible to refuse a felling licence and not offer compensation, perhaps he might also have section 14 examined.