Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour) | Oireachtas source

We agree on much more than we differ on. All of us, including Deputies Boyd Barrett and Ferris, agree afforestation is a good development with significant environmental benefits. The Woodland League, with which I have been in contact, argues some of the earlier afforestation programmes were not beneficial. Back in the days when there were not the stringent requirements there are now to get an afforestation permit, planting was done - in good faith - on marginal lands, many of which were not capable of sustaining even trees. Now, it is more difficult to get an afforestation permit, which is a good development. It tells people we do not want them to waste their resources growing a crop on unsustainable land.

I am not arguing people should be compensated when their land is unsuitable for forestry. In the same way, people refused planning permission for a house because it might interfere with the environment or other guidelines in place for the common good should not be compensated. However, take the case of a person getting planning permission for a house from a local authority, spending a lot of money building it, only to be then told by the local authority that they cannot live in it because it has changed its mind on what is desirable and what is not. That is what I fear will be introduced by this amendment. I welcome the general compensation requirement, as it is an improvement to the 1946 Forestry Act. We should not be introducing laws unless we are improving on what was there before. It is the broad exclusions from compensation, however, that cause me concern. It concerns me that a landowner can go to much trouble to get an afforestation permit but the State can turn around at some point in the future and deny the landowner the opportunity to harvest that crop without recourse to compensation.

See this speech in context