Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 are related and were discussed together. The Minister of State, Deputy Tom Hayes has finished his contribution. Does Deputy Boyd Barrett wish to speak on this?

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to move amendment No. 20.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It involves a potential charge on the Exchequer and has been ruled out of order.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is usual to be notified when an amendment has been ruled out of order. Amendment No. 20 is similar to one I tabled on Committee Stage so I am puzzled as to where the charge on the Exchequer arises.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have been informed that amendments Nos. 20 and 63 form a composite proposal to remove the provision for the charging of fees for services provided. Removing this provision involves a potential charge on the Exchequer so the amendment cannot be moved.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 9, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:“(2) The Minister has a duty to provide information to ensure the public and other authorities are regularly informed on the role and condition of forests as well as on all forestry activities. The Minister has a duty to ensure that all Irish citizens and environmental NGOs are entitled to participate in forestry planning and management at local and national level, ranging from public enquiries to environmental assessments and monitoring.”.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 21a:

In page 9, line 30, to delete “or loan”.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 are physical alternatives and will be discussed together.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 9, line 32, to delete “conditions.” and substitute the following:“conditions, which conditions shall be proportionate to achieving the Act's objectives and shall not impose additional costs on the sector that are not justified.”.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 23 seeks to ensure any licence granted accords with the principles of sustainable forest management. We discussed at length the need to define clearly sustainable forest management and I contend that the Rio principles on this should guide and inform how we come to that definition, but the Government has rejected my contention. This is unfortunate but sustainable forest management is referred to in section 2 so it is a condition for the issuing of licences.

We discussed the issue of Gougane Barra previously and I have spoken to people about this. It links to issues of public consultation and sustainable forest management. The Minister has defended the action as a preventative one to stop the spread of a disease but there was no real consultation with the public, concerned stakeholders, environmental groups, the community on which it will impact and so on. The so-called consultation process can be cursory and tokenistic but real active participation by all key stakeholders, including communities, environmental groups, heritage groups and those with an interest in our forests is necessary for big decisions such as cutting down much of a national park like Gougane Barra. It is necessary to hear all the arguments and consider all the evidence to ensure such big decisions are properly informed. This is what sustainable forest management is about, a real participation by everyone involved. However, this is not how things are done.

One could argue that Coillte is something of a secret society because it is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act. Perhaps the Minister of State can confirm that Coillte employees must sign a confidentiality clause that negates any commitment to public consultation. How can this square with real engagement with the community and stakeholders? It seems Coillte employees can say nothing publicly of Coillte's activities, and this is a real problem.

The decision was made to abandon the sale of Coillte's harvesting rights and afterwards the merger with Bord na Móna was announced. This merger has potentially enormous implications for the future development of a forestry model in Ireland, and some of us are concerned that the merger may have been motivated by a narrow desire to exploit Coillte's land mass resource. Forestry, in the narrowest sense of the word, could mean the facilitation of large industrial wind farms with serious implications for forests. Huge controversies have arisen over such use of Coillte's lands. For example, there has been much controversy and conflict in north Mayo over the building of a refinery there on Coillte's lands. I am speaking of big decisions on the use of public land and forestry resources.

We have to have the most stringent requirements for real engagement with the public and stakeholders when we make enormous decisions impacting on something as important as this forest and land resource. Stating that any licences granted by the Minister, to Coillte or anybody else, must be in line with sustainable forest management is a critical safeguard in the protection of our natural resources from inappropriate development, potentially environmentally-damaging development and development which could potentially damage our heritage and adversely affect other areas such as tourism, walking and mountaineering. Sustainable forest management is an holistic overall view of forestry rather than one too narrowly defined, where decisions are taken very secretively without proper consultation. This is the logic behind stating that all licences should be conditional on the notion of sustainable forest management.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I cannot accept amendments Nos. 22 and 23. With regard to amendment No. 22, the Minister must be empowered to attach conditions to a licence or grant approved by the Minister. Attaching such conditions may be required to address issues of public safety, to protect taxpayers funds, or for reasons related to environmental protection. The attachment of conditions to licences and grants is nothing new and the cost associated with such conditions is part of the normal cost of doing business. Furthermore, whether or not such costs are justified is highly subjective and not appropriate for inclusion in legislation. This is the issue.

With regard to amendment No. 23, one of the Minister's primary functions, as expressed in section 11, is to safeguard the environment and follow good forest practice. It is implicit in the Bill therefore that when the Minister attaches conditions to any approval or licence a basic requirement of such conditions will be the adherence to good forest practice, including compliance with the relevant guidelines and standards issued by the Minister. As I stated previously, sustainable forest management is not defined in the Bill because it is not a fixed concept. The internationally accepted definition of sustainable forest management will invariably evolve over time to reflect the changing values of society.

The Bill is not about Coillte, as I have stated on several occasions in the past. I do not know how much Deputy Boyd Barrett deals with Coillte, but I deal with it on a regular basis and I have much interaction with it. The change of direction is a challenge for the organisation and I believe it can do it in a good way for the State. It will be important from the taxpayers' point of view as they will get value for the investment being made. Access to information is covered under the access to information regulations. Coillte has public consultation on all of its management plans and it is obliged to do so. As a Member of Parliament, the Deputy should see for himself and meet the people involved in Coillte and see how they do business. He would find it informative and I have no doubt, given his concern and interest in trees, that he would find it very worthwhile. I invite him to do so because Coillte has a very good project and model.

The Deputy said he met various people. Over the weekend I met a forester in my home town. He is a man of many years' experience and stated what is good about what is happening in Coillte now is that it will do what it has always been good at, which is marketing trees and wood and cutting and growing wood. There is huge potential for work and projects throughout the organisation to the benefit of the taxpayer in the long term.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Second contributions on Report Stage shall not exceed two minutes.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State. I should take up the offer to meet Coillte. I have had some engagement in recent times with some Coillte staff. I do not want to underestimate the value of much of the work done by many of the people who work for Coillte. What I say is not in any sense across-the-board criticism of Coillte. What is important is the mandate of Coillte, and the extent to which it, and anybody engaged in forestry, is subject to proper environmental guidelines and principles which inform forestry.

The Minister of State has described one aspect of forestry, as has his friend in forestry, which is forestry as a crop. This is an important aspect but it is only one aspect. What slightly worries me is that the legislation is geared primarily towards this and I fear Coillte is geared too much in this direction. I do not state it does not do other things as it does some other things very well but, let us be honest, there is a tension between the pressure to see the thing as a crop, perhaps on a short term basis, and sustainable long-term forestry with stewardship, development and expansion of the forest resource in every sense, economically, socially and environmentally. Serious questions are raised.

I will be interested to hear the response of the Minister of State on why Coillte is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Is it true Coillte employees must sign a confidentiality clause? Who did Coillte consult on such a big decision to cut down huge amounts of the trees in Gougane Barra and close down a forest park? I heard there was a cursory consultation with the forest liaison group and that was it. I would like to hear more on this. We need to have broader more comprehensive principles informing the granting of licences when we deal with such an important resource.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Coillte is subject to the same regulations as any other landowner and this is the reality. With regard to who it consulted in Gougane Barra, certainly it would have been great to consult many other people but there was a disease. I explained this to the Deputy on the previous occasion. The explanation I gave him then is the same. Obviously the decision was not taken lightly. One does not make a decision to fell trees in a place of such beauty as Gougane Barra lightly or without having reason to do so which will stand up. When the Forest Service made the decision it consulted widely on what it could do about the disease and what was the best way to deal with a problem it had. No more than a vet would take a decision on animals with disease, somebody must take a decision, and allowing a disease to go wild and delaying is not the way to do it. Professional specialists were asked and they gave the answer, and that is when it was done.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 23 cannot be moved.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It cannot be moved?

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If amendment No. 22 is agreed.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was not agreed.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The question was carried and the amendment was lost.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My amendment is lost even though it was different?

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The words stand and that cannot be amended.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 23a:

In page 9, line 36, to delete “, grant or loan” and substitute “or grant”.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 10, line 1, to delete “having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including” and substitute “where there is”.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I stated on Committee Stage, the proposed amendment would limit the Minister's power to revoke a licence to circumstances where a breach of licence occurs. There may be circumstances where a licence might have to be revoked or suspended where unforeseen circumstances have arisen which were not evident when the licence was granted.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Granted.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is particularly important in the context of my Committee Stage amendment to extend the licensing period to a period of five to ten years. This amendment was tabled in response to concerns by industry stakeholders put on the basis that the power to revoke or suspend a licence remains.

An example where a licence would need to be suspended, or in limited circumstances revoked, might occur where harvesting and extraction on a steep slope might contribute to an unforeseen landslide causing a large amount of silt to enter the watercourse. In this scenario the silt entering the water could have a serious impact on salmon spawning grounds or public water supplies. If the Minister did not have the power to suspend or revoke a licence, an unco-operative forest owner could continue to harvest and continue to cause environmental damage.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Surely it would be a condition of the licence.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy will also recall that on Committee Stage I introduced a further amendment providing that there must be substantial grounds warranting a decision to vary conditions or to suspend or revoke a licence. For that reason I cannot accept the amendment.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Surely in the example the Minister of State gave, it would be a condition of the licence that one would not do that. Therefore, the Minister would be covered in suspending the licence. Can the Minister of State think of a circumstance that would not be covered under the conditions of the licence?

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is only in extreme circumstances.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Bill does not specify that. One would presume that if the Minister granted a licence to fell, he would specify environmental conditions. I am sure Deputy Boyd Barrett would be shocked, as I would be, if the Minister of State did not think that environmental conditions would be specified in the licence. As the example he gave does not stand up, perhaps he could give me another example.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 7(2)(b) states that the Minister must be satisfied that:

(i) there are substantial grounds warranting that course of action, and

(ii) the exercise of none of the other powers under this subsection would remedy the matter.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can the Minister of State give one example of any foreseeable circumstances in which he would revoke a licence that would not be part of the conditions for anything other than-----

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is what I have stated here.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

However, that would be a condition that he could not-----

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Flooding would be an example.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State will not accept the amendment anyway.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 25 is out of order.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 are related and will be discussed together.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 10, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:

“8. (1) The Minister should establish a working group based on the Forestry Liaison Group, with balanced representation for the social, environmental and economic stakeholders.

(2) The working group may create sub-groups to issue advice on specific areas when required in consultation with the Minister.

(3) The working group should have input in setting of agendas and work.

(4) The working group should act as a link between international and national forest policies.

(5) The terms of reference of the working group should be set by the stakeholders and be guided by the Rio Forest Principles.”.

The Minister of State can correct me if I am wrong in this. As I understand it, there is one environmental representative on the forest liaison group and it is much more industry focused. My amendment would make it a requirement whereas what the Minister of State proposes provides that the Minister basically should have the discretion to decide what experts he or she might want on this committee. I do not think that is good enough. It should not be a matter of discretion whether we have sustainable forest management. It should not be the right of any future Minister to skew forest management, which is such an important resource, in a particular direction if it threatens the integrity of this important resource. That is the logic.

My amendment again refers to the Rio principles. The Minister of State has made the point that sustainable forest management is an evolving concept, which is fair enough. However, the Rio declaration is very comprehensive and allows for that flexibility. It sets out broad principles and parameters, which represent the highest expression of how we should do it right. It takes in all the aspects, including cultural, environmental, tourist and economic value. I want that approach hardwired into the structures which will work with the Government, if one likes, in terms of managing our forests in a sustainable way. I do not see why the Minister of State would not accept that.

The Minister of State's amendment states there should be "an appropriate balance between members who are men and who are women". That is an interesting inclusion and a good one. He is happy to be specific on that balance. Should he not be equally happy to be specific on the other balances? It is absolutely right to specify that gender balance, but he has not included the other social, economic and environmental balances, which are equally important.

At the risk of labouring a point we have discussed at length, I believe it is just a recent example of it. We could also talk about the refinery in north Mayo and the major conflict that caused. Coillte lands were used in a way that caused huge division in the community and certainly the community would maintain there was not adequate consultation with it about what was done. Equally in the more recent example of Gougane Barra, the Minister of State did not outline the consultation process.

The Minister of State has justified it on the basis of urgency because of the spread of the disease.

I am not an expert in this regard but the first indication of disease in Gougane Barra was in July 2013 and the announcement that 16,000 trees would be cut down was made in January. Why were the intervening six months not used for public consultation? That was plenty of time for a comprehensive public consultation to consider the entire issue. Subsequently, it was discovered that it was not just larch that was cut down, as other species were also felled. I acknowledge I do not know but I received a letter from someone who claims to be knowledgeable in this area, which showed pictures of diseased trees where the disease was active and live and those trees were completely decrepit. This person also sent me photographs of the trees that were felled in Gougane Barra, which clearly were not affected by the disease. Questions have been raised and while I do not know whether these suspicions are justified, one way in which this suspicion - or massive conflict and controversy as seen in north County Mayo - can be overcome is to have public consultation. I simply do not accept that one cannot have genuine public consultation without causing unnecessary delays, as to have a proper public consultation is not really about time but is about will. Six months was plenty of time in which to have public consultation but it simply did not happen. Moreover, this concerned a national park of huge importance and perhaps is symptomatic of a problem in respect of decisions that are made.

That is the case for this amendment, which proposes that this working group should be balanced, should be informed by principles of sustainable forest management and that the Minister should not simply be allowed to do what he or she wants. It is a reasonable proposal, which I hope the Minister of State will accept, and I intend to press this amendment.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

During the consideration of an amendment proposed on Committee Stage by Deputy Boyd Barrett, I indicated that I would look again at this provision with a view to introducing flexibility and balanced representation on committees set up under the legislation. I believe my amendment achieves such flexibility. It allows for the appointment of people with the relevant expertise to a committee, having regard to the particular terms of reference of that committee. The advantage of this is obvious, allowing as it would for the utilisation of leading experts in the fields of interest which the committees have been established to examine or report upon. My amendment also acknowledges and has regard to the diverse nature of forestry and the different stakeholder interests ranging from the contractors, consultants and businesses that propagate, plant and fell trees, through to the sawmills that process the timber and the environmental non-governmental organisations whose objective is to protect the environment. It seeks to ensure these diverse interests and views are represented on such committees. It also recognises the need for gender balance in the composition of the committee. This is in line with the commitment given in the programme for Government and the national policy on gender equality that requires all public bodies to take due note of equality in carrying out their functions and to increasing the role of women in decision-making.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

While I appreciate the Minister of State has tabled an amendment to respond to the concerns raised, it is too qualified. I wish to press this matter because it relates concretely to how the Government and the Minister will be influenced by the right balance of stakeholders in forestry. The amendment tabled by the Minister of State states "the Minister shall give due consideration to the desirability of the committee’s membership reflecting the social, economic and environmental interests". In other words, the Minister will consider whether it is desirable to have a balance. That is pretty weak, as how could it not be desirable to have a balance? The Minister should not have the discretion to decide he or she does not wish to have a balance but only wants the industry people. This is how the Minister of State's amendment is worded, whereas the amendment I tabled states there must be a balance. The Minister of State's amendment correctly provides for a balance between men and women, which is very specific, but on the issue of the balance in respect of social, economic and environmental factors, it is up to the Minister as to whether he or she will have a balance.

That is a way out of having a balance and this is not simply an abstract argument because there are serious questions about the model of forestry that is being pursued and whether too often, albeit not in all circumstances, the model being pursued is one that does not really engage properly with the public and does not take on board alternative points of view. Moreover, it is overly geared, and I suspect will become ever-increasingly geared, towards the interests of big developers in industrial wind turbines, industrialised biomass or whatever it might be. While I acknowledge they also have the right to a voice, too often it is that voice which dominates and the community and environmental concerns get lost, as do the other social, cultural and heritage interests and perspectives, to the detriment of our natural resources. This is the basis on which I intend to press the amendment.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The ideal make-up of any committee will be determined by the tasks to be assigned. I have had the opportunity to set up committees in the past and will provide the Deputy with an example. On foot of the major storm that occurred earlier this year, I set up a windblow task force, to which I assigned different people from the industry who had knowledge on how to deal with it. It was a really effective committee and I intend to continue with it, because it acts as a great advisory group and has achieved a lot within a short timeframe. The forest liaison group is a different group in which environmental people are involved. It is my intention at all times to have a balanced representation and it is inherent in what I have already stated that I would get people with expertise from the various fields that are needed for the different committees that might be set up, when needed, on an ongoing basis. One cannot include precisely in legislation that one will put in so many representatives from the environmental sector, so many contractors and so on. As the Deputy is aware, it would not make for good representation. However, the thrust of the amendment I have tabled is to put people on committees that reflect all viewpoints.

As for the land availability group, while I would love to have received a report from it some time ago, this has not happened because there are disagreements on issues and it is hard to bring it to a conclusion. Although I would have liked to have received a report from it faster, because of the differing viewpoints it has taken a long time to get it. Moreover, there are times when one can set up groups that can be cumbersome or difficult to manage. Consequently, to aim for efficiency and as good a balance as one can get always is the best way to do it in order to run it in a more efficient way.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I can only come back once more, I will say my final piece in this regard. I accept the Minister of State's bona fides and that he would seek to so do. That was why he responded to the Committee Stage debate by tabling his amendment. I genuinely accept he would wish to engage in a proper way.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, exactly. That is correct.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

However, I believe there will be huge pressures on all Ministers, present and future, in this area. Sadly, the media are not terribly interested in this debate as it no longer is controversial because Coillte will not be sold. However, I believe that as a big milestone is the potential merger of Coillte with Bord na Móna and what this may mean.

It involves substantial resources, the value and importance of which will increase at every level. The value of these resources is understood in some quarters, for example, in banks which invest heavily in forests. In the aftermath of a period of financial speculation on a virtual economy and the economic crash, there is an increasing awareness of the value of real things such as natural resources. Forestry is an extremely important resource and, as such, future Ministers will come under severe pressure from industry, multinational companies and many other sectors that wish to exploit our natural resources. Against that background, we must set in legislation a requirement to establish a consultative committee with genuinely balanced and broad representation, with which the Minister would consult in deciding how to approach this issue and deal with the pressures he or she will face. This is necessary to ensure citizens, communities, history and heritage do not lose out.

I have not taken an inflexible approach. My amendment does not specify that the committee must include a certain number of environmentalists, trade unions, members of walking groups, etc. It offers the Minister flexibility, while spelling out that he or she must establish a committee with balanced representation whose approach, broadly speaking, would be informed by the Rio principles.

I will press the amendment because the decision on this issue will have significant consequences for the management of forestry. I hope the Minister of State will consider accepting it, although I am certain he will not do so.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

May I make a final point?

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, Members may only speak twice on a Report Stage amendment.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Members who wish to have conversations should have them outside the Chamber. I now call on the Minister of State to move amendment No. 27 which has already been discussed with amendment No. 26.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 10, to delete line 34 and substitute the following:“(5) A committee shall consist of such number of members (including, where appropriate, persons with an expertise relevant to the committee’s terms of reference) as the Minister thinks proper; in making appointments to a committee the Minister shall give due consideration to the desirability of the committee’s membership reflecting the social, economic and environmental interests concerned and the need for an appropriate balance between members who are men and who are women.”.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 11, line 11, after “law” to insert the following:“, save where such disclosures may be deemed to be in the public interest, particularly where such disclosures are made in the interests of sustainable forest management”.

This is important because, as we know, we have had too much secrecy in State institutions in general, which has cost our society dearly in a range of institutions and sectors. They include the financial sector, schools, churches and various State institutions. The secret society approach to running an economy, a society or a state has to end.

This is something the Government has indicated should happen. We need greater accountability and transparency, and to encourage whistle blowing when it is in the interest of society. It follows logically that the Minister should not have the power to unconditionally impose confidentiality clauses. If a member of the relevant committee believes it is in the public interest and in the interest of sustainable forest management to blow the whistle, he or she should not be prohibited from doing so. That is a general reason why the Government should accept this amendment.

There are concerns about the decision making process in the forestry sector, particularly by the biggest owner of forests in this country, Coillte, and its impact on the national forest estate and adjoining communities. The Minister of State, Deputy Tom Hayes, has pointed out that a lot of people are doing a lot of good work in Coillte. I recognise that Coillte employs a considerable number of dedicated people who love what they do and care passionately about our forests. However, one could say that about many dysfunctional institutions. There were lots of good people in the church and I am sure they did a lot of good work. There were also some not so good people who did terrible things. The culture of secrecy meant that whistles were not blown when terrible things happened.

This is an important debate. I did not get an answer to my question on why Coillte is not subject to freedom of information. The Minister of State indicated that the Bill is not about Coillte but it is about forestry and Coillte owns half of our forests. It is by far the biggest owner of forests and it has a decisive influence on forestry nationally. It is odd, therefore, that it would not be subject to freedom of information. In the debate on Irish Water, the Government conceded on its initial plan to exclude that company from freedom of information. I do not see why the same argument should not apply to Coillte. Why would it not be subject to freedom of information?

The Minister of State also did not respond to my point that Coillte employees have a confidentiality clause, which means that if they are concerned about certain aspects of what might be happening in the organisation, their contracts of employment precludes them from speaking about their concerns. If we want to give strength to the many good people who work in Coillte, we need to give them legal backing if they decide to speak out about what is going on in this big organisation, which controls 7% of the landmass of this State. The argument that we need greater levels of transparency and accountability is unanswerable. Any power the Minister might have to impose confidentiality has to be qualified in the way this amendment suggests.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the context of our consideration of this amendment on Committee Stage, I indicated that I would consider the public interest issue in consultation with my legal advisers and, if necessary, review the section further before Report Stage. My advice is that the words "or as provided by law" in the existing text of section 9(1) already accommodates the amendment's aims in respect of public interest in that it encompasses the range of legislative provisions that deal with releases of information. The important point is that confidential information may only be released by the Minister or as provided for by law. This encompasses the personal information which cannot generally be released in the public interest because personal rights are enshrined in the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. On the other hand, the release of commercially sensitive information is covered in the Freedom of Information Acts. All the aforementioned legislative provisions are included in the subsection by reference to "provided by law". In the circumstances, I do not propose to accept the amendment.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to hear other opinions on this subject. Does the Minister of State mean that if a member of a committee who advises him on forest management hears something that does not concern personal information, is in line with the law and is a cause for serious concern in the context of the public interest and the sustainable management of our forests, he or she will have the legal right to blow the whistle? I want clarity on that.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have taken legal advice on this matter. It is not possible to provide for exemptions other than by authorisation or where otherwise provided for by law. If the law permits disclosure, a disclosure is permissible.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How stands the amendment?

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will press the amendment, although I will not seek a vote on it. I am not terribly happy with the Minister of State's reply because it is somewhat evasive. The Minister of State cannot speak again but perhaps his officials could just nod. If a disclosure is allowed by law and the whistleblower legislation allows for the disclosure, the Minister would not be able to override permission? I welcome that the Government is introducing legal supports for whistleblowers but I want an assurance that the Minister's power to demand confidentiality cannot override people's legal right to be whistleblowers. It is not clear to me whether that assurance for people to blow the whistle when it is in the public interest to do so is provided for.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputies Ferris and Ó Cuív wish to speak. I am being flexible in allowing them to speak because it is a good time of the year to exhibit flexibility.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

After listening to the engagement between Deputy Boyd Barrett and the Minister of State, I am not satisfied with the latter's answer. Does "as permissible by law" not mean the law?

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The difference between us may not be as great as it would appear. I understand that the law would not permit the release of confidential or commercially sensitive information under freedom of information. In normal circumstances, it would also not be permissible to release personal information on an individual. Am I correct in saying, however, that if a whistleblower law allows the whistle to be blown in certain circumstances, it would be legally possible to make that information available?

In other words, there would be restrictions from freedom of information law on one hand, with normal restrictions on personal information, while on the other hand there would be the possibility of releasing information if a whisteblower law allowed it. Is that the balance we are trying to strike?

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As that has been clarified, is the amendment being pressed?

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would still like that element in the legislation but I will not seek a vote.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments No. 29 to 32, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 11, line 25, to delete "may" and substitute "should".

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is similar to having specific requirements for the Minister to explain himself or herself with regard to decisions. Amendment No. 32 would make it a requirement for proper consultation with the relevant Oireachtas committee. This is about trying to tie in specific accountability requirements in legislation for the decisions to be made. These are reasonable amendments.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 11, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:"(2) The detail required in a forest management plan shall be proportionate to the area of forestry.".

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 11, line 33, after "may" to insert ", having stated his reasons for doing so,".

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 12, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:"(7) Prior to the making of regulations the Minister shall consult with the relevant Oireachtas Committee.".

Alan Farrell (Dublin North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 are related and will be discussed together.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 12, line 11, to delete "have regard to" and substitute "ensure that".

This amendment comes from the idea that the Minister should not just have regard to this issue but it should be required that he or she would take into account the economic, environmental and social impact on forestry and follow the best forest practice rather than just good forest practice, which is not really defined.

It should be defined specifically by national forest policy and by national forest standards. We are trying to be more specific about the meaning of “best forest practice”, which is not always terribly well defined. It is too vague and therefore one can define it any way one likes. Our definitions of these things need to be tighter.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the Deputy’s intention in this amendment which seeks to ensure that the social, economic and environmental functions of forests are maintained at all times. The proposed amendment, however, would place an unrealistic and unobtainable obligation on the Minister because it is simply not possible to ensure that these often competing functions are maintained at all times. For example, it is sometimes necessary to restrict the economic functions of a forest in order to facilitate its environmental functions. This may be the case in limited circumstances where the timing of felling may be temporarily delayed due to the presence of protected species. The existing text in this section obliges the Minister to have regard to the social, economic and environmental functions of forestry in the performance of his or her functions. This enables the Minister to strike an appropriate balance between these functions by means of policy and by way of other measures provided for in this Bill, consequently I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 34 seeks to require the Minister to lead by reference to a national policy and national standards. That would be too restrictive. The existing reference to good forest practice is preferable because it is sufficiently broad to allow the Minister to take account of national and international policy and standards for good forest practice.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The broadness and vagueness concern me. The Minister of State needs flexibility and cannot be absolutely tied down to, or hamstrung by, every last detail but if the policy and standards are good and are informed by a sustainable approach to forestry, some of the clashes and conflicts the Minister of State alludes to do not come into play. There is often a false tension between what is viewed as the economic approach to forestry and the heritage or environmental approach. I am arguing on behalf of environmental groups and people who are passionate about, and interested in, forestry, who know more than I do and who say it is possible to have the best of all possible worlds. If it is done right the unique feature of sustainable forestry is that one can achieve and maximise all of the ends, economic, social, cultural, heritage or whatever. To set them against one another is wrong. If the Minister of State has the right policies and standards and applies those, the clashes do not have to exist.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There will always be policy differences. That is what makes for debate and coming up with the best approach and answers, and one endeavours to do what is best.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 12, to delete line 12 and substitute the following:“(b) lead with reference to all relevant national forest policy and national forest standards,”.

Alan Farrell (Dublin North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 35 arises out of Committee Stage proceedings. Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 are related and will be discussed together.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 12, to delete line 14 and substitute the following:“(i) protected semi-natural habitats and protected species that may be impacted by forest activities, both inside and outside the forest, and whether within or outside protected areas, and”.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister’s obligations in respect of protected habitats and species is already provided for in existing legislation through the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulation 2011 which gives effect to the EU Birds and Habitats Directives. These regulations already require the Minister to carry out detailed assessments of the potential impact of forestry projects and plans on protected habitats and species before deciding whether to grant a licence or approval for a project or plan. Consideration of the "in combination" effect of projects and plans is an integral part of these assessments and is also provided for in that legislation.

Section (11) paragraphs (d) and (e) already make clear references to the Minister’s responsibility to ensure compliance with the EU Communities (Birds and Habitats) Regulation 2011 in the performance of his or her duties. I am informed that duplicating legislative provisions already contained in other complementary legislation poses an unnecessary risk of creating confusion and contradictory interpretations. A clear reference to the other legislation is sufficient and preferable. I take the view, therefore, that the proposed amendments are unnecessary and I cannot accept them.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 36 deals with the different activities that can combine to have an impact on, and pose dangers to, forests. This relates to my point about the areas of activity of organisations such as Coillte or the various things that can happen on lands adjoining forest, particularly following the possible merger of Coillte and Bord na Móna. The amendment tries to refer specifically to the cumulative effect of diversifying into areas such as wind energy and biomass and other activities, or products, on, or close to, forest lands.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Consideration of an “in combination” effect of projects and plans is an integral part of these assessments also provided for in that legislation.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have doubts about how well it is provided for.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 12, line 25, after “Regulations,” to insert the following:“including in each case consideration of in combination effects of afforestation and other plans or projects,”.

Alan Farrell (Dublin North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 37, in the name of Deputy Boyd Barrett, has been ruled out of order.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 13, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:"13. (1) The Minister may require the carrying out of ecological surveys of any afforestation sites to—

(a) prevent damage to species and habitats that the state has responsibility to protect, or

(b) prevent genetic pollution of existing and ancient woodlands, which might be adversely impacted by new plantations of native species of an exotic source.

(2) The Minister will make provision for concerned citizens to petition him or her for an ecological survey to be conducted where a citizen believes the ecological integrity of a forest or protected species or habitats are endangered by activities within or outside the forest.".

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I have previously indicated, there is already an established framework under the European Communities (Forest Consent and Assessment) Regulations 2010, whereby prior to any approval being issued, my Department must determine whether an initial afforestation project is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the environment and complete a screening to determine whether an environmental impact statement is required. As part of this process, my Department regularly consults other agencies, including the National Parks and Wildlife Service, Inland Fisheries Ireland, local authorities and An Taisce. Provision is also made for the general public to make submissions on the likely environmental effects of any such projects. These environmental impact assessment procedures are complemented by the appropriate assessment procedure operated by the Department under the birds and habitats regulation, whereby all forestry projects which require a licence are evaluated to determine whether there is a possibility that the project might have a significant effect on the conservation objectives and the qualifying interests of the Natura 2000 sites. If it is determined that there is a possibility of a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site, the applicant must submit a Natura impact statement to my Department before a decision is made on whether to issue a licence or approval. I remain of the view that the protection of the environment is already sufficiently addressed by this Bill and other legislation. I do not propose to accept this amendment. I remind the Deputy, in response to his point about making provision for concerned citizens to petition the Minister, that provision is already made in existing forestry legislation for concerned citizens to participate in the decision-making process with regard to forestry. Amendment No. 61a, in my name, will empower the Minister to make regulations to introduce further measures to improve public participation in the process.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to elaborate briefly on the logic behind this amendment. I want to underline that I am by no means a scientific expert in this area. I would like to comment on the whole issue of disease without getting into the rights and wrongs of the Gougane Barra issue. There has been some speculation about certain diseases which are beginning to appear here, in England and in other parts of Europe. I refer to diseases that we did not appear to have much of before now. I was reading an article about the ramorum issue. As far as I understand it, we did not really have it here before. They did not have it in England until relatively recently. The Minister of State's officials probably know more about it. Perhaps the point is that it was limited to different species. There is speculation that it is hitting new species after being imported into Ireland and Britain because we are planting particular types of species that might not be appropriate. One of the consequences of the spread of these diseases is that we have to cut down loads of trees. This example shows why we need to be careful about the potential impact of afforestation projects on our native woodlands. That is the point of this amendment. It seems reasonable that people who are concerned about these issues should have the right to petition to ensure the possible ecological impact on native woodlands is studied properly.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be brief. I do not want to open up another debate on this issue. Everything is already in place. The National Parks and Wildlife Service and all the different agencies are asked for their opinions. Those opinions are always discussed. One is always concerned about disease. One must always take every step to prevent disease. Ash dieback, for example, is a new disease that we have relatively little information on. The Department, with the support of the other agencies, is continuing to try to find disease-resistant trees. One has to look for other ways to deal with these matters. One has to take the best advice available at the time to deal with these issues.

Alan Farrell (Dublin North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Recommital is required in respect of amendments Nos. 41a, 41b, 41c, 41d, 41e, 41f and 71a. These amendments are related and will be discussed together.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 41a:

In page 14, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:

"(4) On proof by the owner of the land concerned that the steps taken in relation to that land by a person authorised under subsection (2) needlessly resulted in damage or loss of a significant character to that owner in respect of that land, the person so authorised shall be liable to pay compensation to him or her therefor and, if the person so authorised is not the owner of the trees referred to in subsection (1), the person shall be entitled to be reimbursed by the owner of the trees in respect of any payment the person has properly made to the first-mentioned owner under this subsection.".

Amendments Nos. 41a and 41d arise as a consequence of legal advice received from the Office of the Attorney General to the effect that provision should be made for payment of compensation to a landowner whose land has been entered for the purpose of removal of vegetation or vermin from that land and where such action has needlessly resulted in damage or loss to the owner of that land. The compensation is payable by the person who was authorised to enter the land. Compensation will not be payable by the Minister. Amendments Nos. 41b, 41c, 41e and 41f are grammatical changes and make no material change to the subsection.

Amendment No. 71a introduces a new section to deal with compensation. Deputies will recall that on Committee Stage there was lengthy discussion on the need for the Bill to provide for payment of compensation in circumstances where there is refusal of an application for a felling licence. In light of those concerns, particularly from Deputy McNamara, who fought a lengthy argument on this issue, I sought the advice of the Office of the Attorney General in the matter and the advice I received was that there would be a risk of a finding that the provisions of the Bill permitting refusals of felling licences would be unconstitutional if they failed to provide for compensation.

The purpose of this proposed amendment, for which I have received Government approval, is to give effect to this legal advice to provide for compensation where it is legally necessary to do so. While the outright refusal of an application for approval or licence is infrequent, there are, and will continue to be, instances where an approval or a licence may be refused by the Minister, usually for reasons of environmental protection.

It is intended that compensation will be provided through regulations to be made by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine which will require the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. The proposed amendment limits the circumstances in which compensation will be payable. In the case of refusal of a felling licence or forest road licence, compensation will be limited to the depreciation in the value of the trees that is attributable to the deterioration in the quality of the timber as a consequence of the refusal. This is similar to the provision included in Northern Ireland and UK legislation. Restrictions on the payment of compensation are also listed, including where a licence is refused for environmental reasons, for example, in a designated nature conservation area or for reasons of public health or safety.

I am confident that the measures outlined here, which will be expanded upon by way of regulations, will address the legal concerns previously raised. It is my intention to have the necessary regulations completed within six months of the passage of this Bill through the Oireachtas.

I acknowledge the contribution of Deputy McNamara, who has arrived in the Chamber, and his insistence, and that of others, on seeking clarification from a legal perspective.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for tabling this amendment and listening to what some of us argued on Committee Stage. It improves the Bill in many regards. The amendment introduces compensation in cases where an afforestation permit is refused, where a felling licence is refused or where a forest road is refused. That is welcome because the refusal of any of those is an interference with the property right. In certain circumstances our Constitution requires compensation for an interference with a property right. However, it is not just our Constitution which requires that. It is also required by the European Convention on Human Rights, which is incorporated into Irish law to the extent it is by the Human Rights Act. The European Convention on Human Rights is also incorporated into British law. It was for that reason, and I refer to the committee debates in Northern Ireland, compensation was provided in the event that a felling licence is refused in Northern Ireland. That was pointed out to the Minister on Committee Stage.

My clear understanding is that this compensation was introduced in Northern Ireland not necessarily because the State wanted to introduce it but the State felt it was required to be introduced to be compliant with the Human Rights Act. The property rights protections in the European Convention on Human Rights are broadly the same as the property rights in our Constitution. There is extensive case law on this matter to interpret those protections. Undoubtedly, it is possible to interfere with those property rights in the common good. The Constitution clearly states that. I refer to one of the leading academic commentaries on the Irish Constitution, the first edition of which was by the late John Kelly, a Fine Gael Deputy. The current edition states that it will be noticed that the cases presented so far sometimes referred to compensation as an element which may validate or make acceptable constitutionally what would otherwise be an objectionable inroad on private property or the absence of compensation as an element confirming the injustice of the interference.

For all those reasons I welcome that the Minister has introduced an amendment to these matters but amendment No. 71a hollows out the compensation provisions. It states that the Minister may introduce a statutory instrument to compensate for these matters but the Minister, by statutory instrument, will be able to refuse compensation if the refusal is based on certain reasons, and those refusals are very broad. If the refusal is because of environmental concerns, health and safety, a fear of interference with water quality or best forestry practice, and we heard earlier in the Chamber that best forestry practice is an evolving concept, there will be no compensation. It is difficult to understand how anyone could be refused for any reasons other than the reasons contained in the provisions. They are so broad it means that one is entitled to compensation, but one will not get compensation.

I have no problem with a refusal to grant an afforestation permit being excluded from compensation if it is for any of these reasons because that is more or less already provided in the Planning Act. If one is refused permission to build an estate of houses on one's land, one is not entitled to compensation for it because it is for the common good but I have a major problem with one aspect, and I question how it could be constitutional. If someone is issued an afforestation permit, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine can tell that person to go ahead and plant their ten, 100 or 1,000 acres of land and he or she will examine whether that is in the common good in terms of the environment, water quality and so on.

The State gives permission to do this, but it must be borne in mind that this affects not only the property rights but the right to earn a living. Say, for example that after having invested one's livelihood it has been 70 years since one planted as a young man and having reached the ripe old age of 90 and having thought one would never see such a day, one decides to realise the investment. At that point the legislation as framed allows the Minister to intervene.

I am not particularly worried that the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Hayes, has the power because, as we have already discussed, he is a benign Minister. However, this law will be there for future generations and it will give a future Minister the right to say that he or she has changed his or her mind. Moreover, because it is in the interests of best forestry practice which has evolved considerably over the years or because the reasons are environmental the Minister can then decide one cannot harvest those trees for which the State gave the person concerned the afforestation permit. The fact that there is no compensation for that, not the fact that a future Minister would be allowed to refuse a permit to fell those trees, but the fact that he or she can do so without providing compensation, seems contrary to what the Minister of State hopes to achieve by this Bill.

I heard the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Hayes, not today but on the last occasion this Bill was discussed on Report Stage, state that one of the objectives of this Bill was to get those who own a marginal piece of land to think about afforesting it.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I listened with interest to Deputy McNamara's contribution on compensation for those who are compliant with the permit at any given time. I am a little confused. He mentioned where somebody goes for planning permission, gets planning permission and is compliant with planning permission rules. We had a Minister in here who disregarded that. I refer to the septic tank charges, if the Minister of State recalls. Those who were compliant in 1984, 1986, 1994 and right through, because of the EPA guidelines, would not be compliant now. I acknowledge Deputy McNamara's argument on what has gone before. I have always been of the opinion that if the septic tank issue was challenged constitutionally it would not succeed.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I find Deputy McNamara’s argument quite compelling. When I think about it, it is similar to one of the amendments I had tabled, which was ruled out of order because it could involve a charge on the Exchequer, that would ensure financial recognition for forest owners who did not harvest a crop in the interest of European designations or good environmental management. It is about encouraging people to engage in forestry but also to ensure that those who the State hopes will develop forestry will have some guarantee that they will not be at a loss for doing so. I would like to see the State forestry company, Coillte, significantly contribute to afforestation. There needs to be a debate about its incapacity to do so with EU rules and so forth. Given that the Government’s focus is about encouraging private farmers to move into forestry in a larger way-----

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is for a very good reason.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but we also have an imperative to ensure we have good, environmentally protective, best practices in forestry. Deputy McNamara has a good point about a farmer who decides to afforest marginal land but discovers 40 years later that he cannot harvest it and will not get any financial recognition for contributing to the overall environmental welfare. Farmers are right and justified in seeking the assurance that if that were to happen - as Deputy McNamara said it could for a very good reason - then they will be compensated. It is a reasonable argument.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have spent much time discussing this important aspect of the Bill. This Bill intends to encourage landowners across the country to plant more forestry in marginal land. Up to 6,500 hectares are planted every year but the programme for Government calls for up to 14,000 hectares. As a landowner myself, I know opting for forestry is a significant commitment. If a farmer changes from breeding one stock to another, for example, it can easily be reversed. Forestry, however, is a commitment for many years. This legislation will make it amenable for landowners to make a decision to move into forestry.

We are all agreed about the benefits of afforestation to rural communities. Only last week, I visited Munster Joinery’s factory in Cork, a firm which employs over 1,000 people in rural areas. There is no industry that I know that can generate such good and environmentally sound employment in rural areas.

All Members who have contributed to this amendment have made strong points on the issue in question. However, we have received legal opinion from the Attorney General on this which caused a delay in the Bill’s progress. While I would have liked to have the Bill enacted earlier, it is important it is done right. As a Minister, I cannot go against the legal advice of the Attorney General to the Government. This amendment has been drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel on foot of that advice.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That would be a very infrequent occurrence.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept that but there are concerns.