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

I find myself, strangely, in agreement with Deputy Fitzmaurice, or perhaps it is not so strange. We should not be debating this Bill. We certainly should not be rushing it through in this way. I have learned a lot from the Deputies Danny and Michael Healy-Rae, Mattie McGrath and others. I genuinely bow to their knowledge and experience of certain situations, the views of farmers and all of those points. However, I also believe that our current forestry model is a problem. That is not the fault of individual farmers. Rushing through legislation that could have very significant knock-on consequences to solve a particular problem is not the answer. We should be allowed to consider this properly and come to a solution that is beneficial to all. That is now what this is about.

I am not quite sure who is driving the agenda here, but I suspect it is far bigger players than those represented by Deputies Michael and Danny Healy-Rae. The forestry appeals committee should not be tied to a particular timeline. Our amendment No. 59 is about ensuring that the forestry appeals committee carries out all the necessary checks which are required of the Minister by law and complies with all the relevant EU directives. That must be done, however long it takes. The forestry appeals committee should have the same legal obligations as the Minister in that regard. Unfortunately, those obligations will sometimes take time to fulfil. Deputy Mattie McGrath or Deputy Danny Healy-Rae might say it is just not realistic to give financial compensation to people whose decisions are held up. I understand that, but I think we should give such compensation. If they planted in good faith, their investment or employment is on the line and they face problems because of the requirement for proper environmental oversight, they should absolutely get support from the State.

However, I do not think the two should be set against each other. We need to have proper oversight and should not be tied to arbitrary timelines as proposed in some amendments.

See this speech in context