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

I am afraid that was not convincing.

The demarcation lines of bureaucracy and Departments should not be what inform our approach to forestry. We often hear the phrase "we need joined-up thinking" and often people comment of the lack of it in Government and in other areas. Where areas overlap and there are certain demarcation lines, we need flexibility and imagination and to remember that what is important is the issue with which we are dealing and not the pre-existing demarcation lines set by the Government and bureaucracy. If such flexibility and creativity informed the way the Government works, it would work much better and probably alienate far fewer people.

The Minister has not given a terribly good explanation for not being able to accept the first amendment in this grouping because in terms of what I proposed we are dealing with forests and this is the Forestry Bill. Let us get the protections and the approach to it right and let the Government catch up with how it deals with overlapping responsibilities between one Department and another. I am sure they can figure it out. I do not accept the argument he put forward. Principle 2(b) of the Rio declaration states: "Appropriate measures should be taken to protect forests against harmful effects of pollution, including air-borne pollution, fires, pests and diseases, in order to maintain their full multiple value." That is the holistic and right approach.

On the Minister of State's response to the second amendment in the grouping, there is a tendency in many of his responses, and it is also inherent in the Bill, to create a false tension between the forest owner, particularly the private forest owner, or the farmer and more environmental concerns. The thrust of all my amendments is to point out that this is a false distinction. What is good for the forest is good for the farmer but it is not always seen that way. The way legislation is often framed is informed by the view that there is some contradiction between those two things and there is not. If we do not understand that and overcome that false distinction, we will do a disservice not only to forestry but to farming.

See this speech in context