Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour) | Oireachtas source

That is an objective on which we both are agreed. I completely support the Minister of State on that, as I broadly support him on this Bill, but I do not see how somebody who owns a marginal piece of land could be encouraged to plant it if the Minister is saying that he will allow the person to plant it because it is marginal, he or she will get a considerable return on investment over 70 years as it is not great land in that one cannot graze it half of the time. The Minister may even encourage planting by making it easier to jump through the hoops to determine whether or not it is feasible to plant in terms of whether it is environmentally beneficial, the water is suitable and the character of the landscape is suitable. Yet he may refuse an afforestation permit, the refusal of which I do not have a problem with because there are lands that are suitable for afforestation and lands that are not. However, once the Minister or any State actor gives someone an afforestation permit to invest in this, tie up the person's livelihood, and his or her family's livelihood and the possibility of earning money from this piece of land which is the person's private property, how can a future Minister, say 70 years later or, if they are growing it for hurleys, even ten or 20 years later, state that the State has changed its mind? One of the most basic requirements for any investment is certainty, for example, the certainty that if one buys a house one will be able to live in it or if one grows a crop of mangles or potatoes one will be able to harvest them and use them.

What the Minister of State is saying to those with marginal land is that he would like them to plant it but he will not tell them for sure that they will be able to access the crop because he retains the right to deny them access to it. That is fine because it is in the common good. However, it is not in the interests of best forestry practice to do so and exclude the right to compensation. I would have severe doubts as to how it could be constitutional because, as I stated, it interferes with the property right, albeit in the common good, but without the right to compensation.

I welcome that the Minister of State addressed this and other concerns which were raised on Committee Stage, not only by me but by other members of the committee. That is more broadly indicative of the approach of the Department rather than the Minister of State because his colleague, the Minister, Deputy Coveney, adopted a similar approach in seeking to achieve consensus on the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013. It is much appreciated because, ultimately, the Constitution states we all are here to make law even if sometimes our constituents, or even we ourselves, think we are here for other reasons.

I do not want to labour the point. I welcome the amendment the Minister of State is introducing, amendment No. 71a. I would have doubts about some of the wording of it. It is a little awkward. Leaving that aside my major concern would be that while it introduces a compensation requirement - I argued on Committee Stage that a compensation requirement was required to make it constitutional - it is then hollowed out by the reasons that one will not receive compensation. That would be my concern, that it does not encourage landowners to afforest their land. Moreover, I would have doubts about its constitutionality.

Before the Minister of State responds I appreciate everything that he has done to address the concerns. I thank him for having arranged a meeting with some representatives of his staff, who, I know, have taken legal advice. I know that their legal advice is that this is sound. I also know that the Minister of State is not bound to take legal advice from some backbencher. I appreciate that, and I would not expect him to. As an elected representative, my view is that this does not encourage forestry and that it is possibly unconstitutional. I would like to see it tested at some stage. I would have my doubts about how it will go. Nobody can predict with certain how anything will happen.

I appreciate the Minister of State's efforts. I am not seeking to denigrate them. However, the end result is still a concern to me, that a person can be given a permit, can be told it is okay to plant a piece of land, ties it up for as much as 70 years and at the end of that 70 years, when the person thinks that he or she has put this aside and the investment is there for the person and his or her children, the person could be refused permission to cut the trees. This on the basis that the Forestry Bill passed in 2014 states that if the Minister refuses such a person for environmental reasons, because of water quality, etc., he or she does not have to compensate him or her. In consequence, the Minister is refusing the person in this instance and will not provide compensation. Those are my concerns.

See this speech in context