Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I refer to amendments Nos. 29 to 32, inclusive. I appreciate the idea behind amendment No. 29, substituting "should" for "may", is positive towards forestry management planning but the use of the word "may" is more appropriate to this section. For this reason, I do not agree with the proposed amendment. Forest sizes can vary from small to very large and it is important that this provision is flexible enough to allow for a selective approach to requirements for a forestry management plan.

With regard to amendments Nos. 30 and 31, I draw Deputies' attention to section 10(6), where the provision is made for the making of regulations to provide for the form, content, duration and implementation of plans. In drafting such regulation, a Minister must have regard to the doctrine of proportionality, in particular that any requirement he or she proposes would not be disproportionate to the objectives sought and that constitutional rights of citizens would be protected. Furthermore, such regulation cannot go beyond the principles and policies set down in the Bill. It is implicit in the text of the Bill and prior to the drafting of regulations that the reasons for such measures would be outlined in advance. The intention is to make management plans as user-friendly as possible and my Department will provide templates and guidelines to facilitate this process. I accept the spirit in which the amendments are proposed but it is not necessary to include them in the text. I do not accept amendments Nos. 30 and 31.

With regard to amendment No. 32, it is not necessary to provide this level of scrutiny for all proposed secondary legislation and I do not accept this amendment. In the context of section 25, dealing with power to charge and recover fees, I will introduce amendment No. 64 to allow for parliamentary scrutiny of any proposal that may emerge to charge fees.

See this speech in context