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

Before we finished last time, I welcomed the Minister's considerable efforts in bringing the Bill before the House. While the Bill has many positive attributes, I expressed concern on Committee Stage about the compensation requirements. When we were originally on Committee Stage, I questioned whether a compensation clause was required for forest owners who were refused a felling licence. There is a compensation regime in all jurisdictions of the UK. There is one in the English Forestry Act and a simple compensation regime was introduced in Northern Ireland when its forestry Act was introduced in 2010. It was not brought in because the Northern Ireland Executive particularly wanted to compensate forestry owners, but because it felt there was a legal requirement to do so, arising from the UK Human Rights Act, which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR, and the property rights guaranteed in it into UK law.

We have a similar incorporation measure here, the European Convention on Human Rights Act. Therefore, I was initially perplexed on Committee Stage about how something could be a requirement to comply with the ECHR in Northern Ireland but not here. The Minister said the legal advice he received had changed, and this is of concern to me. The law did not change, nor did the ECHR or the Irish Constitution, and there were no Supreme Court cases interpreting this aspect of the Constitution. While I accept that the legal advice changed, I do not know how it could have. If it was wrong the first time, is it right now? If it was right then, is it wrong now? If it was wrong then, is it still wrong now?

The legal advice was that compensation was required, and I commend the Minister on introducing it. I commend him on going to the trouble of following up on what I asked him to do, and finding out that a compensation provision was required. However, I am concerned that the compensation provision is a compensation provision in name only because there are so many exclusions in that no Deputy could have any illusions that anybody will ever be compensated under it. If a compensation provision is required, surely a compensation provision which can and will never result in compensation being paid could not possibly meet the requirement.

For all those reasons, I have personal doubts as to whether this Bill is constitutional. I accept that the Minister's legal advice is that it is, and I accept the separation of powers, which was in the news earlier this week. It is not for this House to decide what is and is not constitutional. Only the Supreme Court can do so. However, the House should be cognisant of previous decisions by the Supreme Court when it outlined the contours of private property protections. Pursuant to Article 26 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has found that Bills which came from this House, namely the Employment Equality Bill 1996 and the Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Bill 1981, were unconstitutional because they transferred a benefit which would accrue to one group in society to another.

In the case of the Employment Equality Bill, it was the cost of providing places of employment which were accessible to persons with disabilities and in the case of the Private Rent Restrictions Bill the issue was restricted rents. I fear the Forestry Bill does something similar. We all agree that the environment and water quality must be protected and that these are issues of the common good. However, if a decision is made for certain reasons, a person will not be compensated. While we all accept that the reasons set out are valid ones for restricting people, the issue is why the costs of that should be borne exclusively and entirely by the private forestry owner, particularly where that private property owner has obtained permission from the State to plant the forest in the first place. I have reservations about the Bill and its compliance with the protections for private property in the Constitution. It is for the Supreme Court not for me to decide that. The President may or may not see fit to refer the Bill. It is his prerogative which he exercises on the advice of the Council of State free of any interference from anybody in this House.

My concern regarding the constitutionality of the Bill does not relate to the above-mentioned provision only, although it is the primary issue. Section 14 empowers the Minister to remove or destroy vegetation on land which is unoccupied or where the owner fails to comply with a notice to remove it and the Minister is satisfied that the vegetation poses a fire risk to a forest in the vicinity. Again, there is no compensation requirement for the owner of the adjacent lands. There was a case in the 1980s - ESB v.Gormley - in which the Supreme Court found that parts of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1927 providing for a way leave for the ESB to enter across lands to erect structures were unconstitutional. While the court indicated specifically that the right to enter onto lands and lop trees or cut vegetation was not an unreasonable restriction and was constitutional, the Act included a right to compensation. Owners of lands the ESB enters to cut trees or remove vegetation can apply for compensation. Section 14 includes no right to apply for compensation where the Minister empowers somebody to enter onto lands to cut vegetation.

I cannot put the matter any further except to say, going back to the idea of the separation of powers, that if the Bill were referred to the Supreme Court, it would exercise curial deference. It would consider that the Oireachtas knows best and that the Members have debated the matter. Within certain limits, there is a deference to the Oireachtas. The court will say that the Oireachtas considers the Bill will promote forestry. However, we have not discussed how it promotes forestry to introduce a provision whereby a person who applies for a permit to plant lands can be told 50, 60 or 100 years later, the Minister having carried out whatever tests he or she wants, that we have changed our minds, the trees cannot be harvested and we are not providing compensation. It could be 200 years in the case of an oak forest. While I can see how that might benefit the environment and water quality, I cannot see how it will encourage private persons, corporations, companies and trust funds to engage in forestry. I cannot see how it is for the good of forestry that someone who is granted a permit to plant a crop on his or her land does not have the certainty of compensation in the event of being refused a felling licence. They have that certainty in Northern Ireland because the legislature there felt it was legally necessary to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights, or ECHR. They have it in the UK, where it was introduced in 1967. There was no issue of doing it to comply with the ECHR in that case but they may be particularly attached to private property rights in the House of Commons. The Bill before the House does not contain such a provision and for that reason I have concerns about its constitutionality.

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

Deputy McNamara spoke at length about his concerns that the restriction on the payment of compensation within the Bill will severely limit the instances where payments of compensation will be made. While it is true that the instances will be limited, the provision must be viewed in the context of ensuring the common good is served at all times. The circumstances in which compensation will not be payable will broadly include circumstances where the grant of a licence would negatively impact on the environment, good forest practice, public health or safety, protection from flooding or preservation of water quality or where the application was either inadequate or incomplete. Any application for compensation as a consequence of the refusal of a licence will be considered having regard to the individual circumstances of the case and whether one or more of the above-mentioned criteria is applicable. Greater detail will be included in the regulation that follows the Bill. In essence, a licence will not be refused without good reason. My Department will endeavour to work with landowners to explore all possible options before considering outright refusal which will always be a last resort.

As Deputy McNamara is questioning the constitutionality of the provision, I reiterate that it follows consideration of legal advice from the Office of the Attorney General arising from questions raised by the Deputy. I obtained the advice on Committee Stage and followed it through.

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

I appreciate that.

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

My amendment presented on Report Stage was drafted, reviewed and approved by the Office of the Attorney General, having regard to the examination of existing judgments of the Supreme Court. A recent High Court judgment in McGrath Limestone Works Limited v.An Bord Pleanála, a copy of which I can make available to the Deputy, serves to uphold the approach adopted in the Bill. In the circumstances, I must press ahead with my amendment.

I appreciate what Deputy McNamara has endeavoured to do. It helped the consultation process along. However, we are where we are. The advice is as set out.

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

I move amendment No. 41b:

In page 14, line 11, after “ “owner” ” to insert “, in relation to land,”.

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

I move amendment No. 41c:

In page 14, line 12, to delete “concerned”.

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

I move amendment No. 41d:

In page 15, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:“(6) 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.”.

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

I move amendment No. 41e:

In page 15, line 7, after “ “owner” ” to insert “, in relation to land,”.

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

I move amendment No. 41f:

In page 15, line 8, to delete “concerned”.

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

Amendments Nos. 42, 48 to 50, inclusive, 50a, 51, 52, 52a, 52b and 53 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Amendments Nos. 50a, 52a and 52b are related and Nos. 52a and 52b are physical alternatives to amendment No. 52.

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

I move amendment No. 42:

In page 15, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:“(2) A licence approval will issue in default of decision by the Minister 12 weeks from receipt of the application. This approval, however, will be waived if there is requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement or Appropriate Assessment.

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

I will discuss amendments Nos. 42, 48 to 50, inclusive, 50a, 51, 52, 52a, 52b and 53 together.

The issue of timelines and the issuing of felling licences was raised on Committee Stage and in my discussions with representatives of the industry and growers. I have made a significant change to the Bill by placing an objective timeline of four months for the issuing of felling licences. In some cases, licences will be issued within a shorter timeframe. I propose further amendments to this provision, which I will outline shortly.

The Deputies' amendments seek a range of timelines. Given the detailed processes and consultation involved in the processing of a felling licence, this is unrealistic and the amendments cannot be accepted. In assessing applications for felling licences, my Department must take cognisance of the fact that forest harvesting operations and associated activities have the potential to impact significantly on protected habitats, archaeological monuments, water quality and important landscapes. Consequently, before a felling licence can be granted, my Department must consult with a range of agencies, including the National Parks and Wildlife Service, local authorities, National Monuments Service, and the Inland Fisheries Ireland in order to assess the potential impacts that may arise from the harvesting activity. It should also be borne in mind that a single felling licence application can cover a very large land area, incorporating several rivers, lakes and designated nature conservation sites such as SACs, SPAs and NHAs.

It takes time to assess the possible impact of forest harvesting operations over such large areas. It must be acknowledged that I have made a significant change to the existing Bill by aiming to have felling licence decisions within four months. I assure the Deputy that progress against this target will be monitored and it will be clear to all how many licences are being issued. I also propose to further refine the section by introducing further deadlines within which certain specific actions must be taken. The purpose of amendments Nos. 52a and 52b is to ensure the applicant is given some degree of certainty as to when the application will be processed and to ensure the applicant is kept informed about issues that may affect the completion of the processing of the application.

I also include a new provision, in amendment No. 50a, which provides for the publication of decisions made in respect of licence applications. This practice is already in place for approvals of applications for forests and for forest roadworks, where decisions are published on the Department's website. The purpose of the provision is to further improve access for the public to forestry information.

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

I was fascinated by the answer of the Minister of State. If I apply for planning permission tomorrow, statutory timelines apply and they must deal with everything mentioned by the Minister of State, including SACs, SPAs, the IFI and the National Parks and Wildlife Service. There is a tendency in this country when someone gets a file in an agency to throw it down and leave it if there is no timeline required. It is left until someone goes crazy and insists on getting an answer. Every Deputy knows that our offices are clogged with cases of people coming to us to say they cannot get an answer. There is no reason to believe the decision the Minister of State will make is any more complex, or half as complex, as many planning decisions. We are talking about a simpler operation. If an application is made, it is easy to insert in the Bill that it is presumed the Forest Service or the IFI has no questions if it does not reply within a fortnight. This will mean that agencies are not allowed to drag their feet while we wait for the slowest player.

When I was a Minister, I started a process that insisted on every section returning replies to representations made to the ministerial offices within a fortnight. If the section did not return the answer, the Minister's office would write the answer. When they thought that the Minister's office might write the answer, they came back like a shot. The usual pile of correspondence in a Minister's office disappeared and the sections started doing their jobs before it got as far as someone having to appeal to the Minister to get an answer.

With An Bord Pleanála, there is a statutory objective of four months but we know that for a single house or for a small planning matter it is more observed in the breach. There is no proportionality and no system that means a massive decision will take longer. The small decisions also get into the same queue that leads to never-never land. When we know this happens and write it into legislation, it is "open Sesame" for people to say they are so busy that they cannot get the job done in time. When statutory dates are included, people suddenly find a way of getting the job done on time. When has the Minister of State heard of a planning authority not being able to get a decision made within the statutory time?

Unless the Minister of State is willing to accept statutory time limits, I will oppose the section and I will oppose the amendments one by one. We are getting fluff that is meaningless in law instead of clear timelines that people must adhere to and the delivery of services that people are crying out for.

In my time in politics, I have come across no evidence that the delay is giving us any better decisions. It is not that we are getting more decisions, we are getting more paperwork. I tabled a very simple amendment. Normally, in these processes, when observations are returned, a Member writes to the client one last time to allow the client to respond. The suggestion I make is that the time from when the client was asked the last question to the final decision date should be a maximum of eight weeks.

The planning system has a whole series of timelines, which I prefer. After lodging applications and consulting, the authority must come back within eight weeks if it has questions of the applicant. Once the applicant answers the questions, the authority must make a decision. I cannot understand why the Minister of State did not lift the process from the planning law, which is time-limited. I think the Minister of State knows about it because he was once a councillor. The system operates well because it forces decisions within fixed time limits.

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

I understand what the Deputy is saying. During our discussions on the Bill, I looked at the council planning permission model. We discussed it at length with the stakeholders and the best we could do is bring it to where it is now. To allow the forestry service to deal with this and to give it time to carry out consultation, it needs a considerable period of time. We included a provision that means the licence applies for ten years. In response, the charter of rights is being redrawn.

We could have a felling licence issue included in the farmer's charter of rights and this will be dealt with over the next months. I give a commitment that I will include it in the charter of rights if that would be helpful. I understand the Deputy's point. However, in my view, taking everything into consideration, the time period stipulated was as good as what we could achieve.

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

I can hear the "Yes Minister" debate happening in the Department in which it is argued, "Minister, dear, this would be absolutely outrageous; imagine tying us to a time limit and we would have to deal with so many issues and it would be so impossible to do this." The fact is that in dealing with much more complex planning issues, it actually operates, as for example, permission to build a nuclear power plant would come with fixed time limits. I think the Minister of State has been badly advised and he is falling sway to all the arguments we have all heard thousands of times. If the Minister of State was on this side of the House he would say, "Hang on a second, this is just an out." Unfortunately, as he knows, the charter of rights is not a statutory obligation, is not judicial; it can be ignored and there is no sanction if people ignore it and they will give the excuse that they are very busy.

I thank the Minister of State for taking the opportunity to come down to the timber mill. I was involved in timber milling. In a timber mill everything is streamlined and nothing falls on the ground. It is a case of organising it to allow for the minimum amount of work and lifting and everything shot down the line in sequence. Many offices have papers and files here, there and everywhere and there seems to be no flow system. If factories were run that way, they would never produce any goods. It is time the public service offices operated on the same principle as factories, that the work is pushed through in a simple, effective manner and that we stop the files falling on the floor and the whole system being disorganised. I am not asking people to work harder; I am actually asking them to work less hard but more systematically. If they do that they would provide these decisions on time and they would not need to give excuses that they are fierce busy because they cannot remember where they put the files. I am always saying that most office administrators would be appalled if the same standards were applied to them in terms of the business flow in a systematic way that is standard in any industrial regime anywhere in the world.

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

Amendment No. 43 is out of order.

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

Amendments Nos. 44 to 47, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

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

I move amendment No. 44:

In page 15, line 33, to delete “conditions:” and substitute “conditions that are in accordance with good forest practices:”.

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

My amendment No. 47 proposes to insert the following: "specified, as long as such conditions are in line with good forest practice and generally concur with the forest management objectives for the forest owner;”. I think this is a reasonable amendment.

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

With regard to amendments Nos. 44 and 47, forest management objectives of owners are catered for in the felling licence application process. I must stress that it will be the forest owner in the first instance who will specify the type of tree felling that will be proposed. It is he or she who will propose the replanting species in the first instance. If a forest is being felled it is the owner who will specify the species and number of trees for felling. For example, if a forest owner found that a crop of Douglas fir had grown particularly well, he or she might want to plant the felled crop with the same species. In this case, he or she would state the species for replanting as Douglas fir on the felling licence application form.

In this situation, if there are no particular environmental considerations, the reforestation proposals will be licensed. Although this section of the Bill allows the Minister to place conditions on a licence it will only occur where the applicant has omitted to take into consideration good forest practice. Examples where the Minister might attach conditions would include amending the application to exclude planting rights up to the banks of a sensitive river or improving the tree species mix and the set-back distance adjoining a public road or a house. Again, these conditions will be reasonable and will take into account consideration of the information submitted by the forest owner on the felling licence.

With regard to amendments Nos. 44 and 47, it is explicit in the Bill that felling licences and conditions issued will generally be in accordance with good forest practice. However, there may be limited circumstances where licences may be issued which do not fall into the category strictly described as "good forest practice". For example, there may be valid reasons where tree felling is for social or conservation reasons which may not necessarily be described as good forest practice. Examples might include a forest owner proposing to remove a small area of forest for the creation of a hurling pitch for a local village or the felling of trees to prioritise the conservation of a protected species. Although the power to attach conditions is provided for in this Bill the felling licence application process allows for the owner's objectives to be included in the licensing process. For all the reasons stated I do not intend to accept these amendments.

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

I thought that replanting was not absolutely required in every case and there are circumstances where replanting is not required. We are looking at the condition in the Bill where replanting is required. I refer to section 17(4)(b) of the Bill which requires the replanting of trees. The worry is that as this is written, in the case of a person who is growing commercial forestry the Department could decide which species of trees was to be used in replanting, for example, it could be oak the next time. The forest management objectives of the forest owner would not be taken into account. Our amendments propose that when replanting is required, the replanting should comply with good forest practice and I cannot foresee any situation where it would be required if it were not good forest practice. The objectives of the forest owner must be taken into account and it should be a statutory obligation to take them into account when making the order or when laying down the condition of replanting. That is the objective of our amendments.

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

The forest owner makes the proposal and it is up to the Department to respond.

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

Deputies Thomas Pringle and Richard Boyd Barrett are not present.

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

I move amendment No. 47:

In page 16, line 7, to delete “specified;” and insert the following:

“specified, as long as such conditions are in line with good forest practice and generally concur with the forest management objectives for the forest owner;”.

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

I move amendment No. 50a:

In page 17, line 11, to delete “and” and substitute the following:

“(c) provide for the publication of decisions made in respect of licence applications, and”.

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

I move amendment No. 52a:

In page 17, line 20, to delete “by notice in writing served on the applicant for the licence” and substitute the following:

“by notice in writing that is served on the applicant for the licence no later than 7 days before the expiry of the period so referred to”.

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

I move amendment No. 52b:

In page 17, line 22, after “date” to insert the following:

“, being a date, unless an environmental impact assessment or other type of assessment or significant further information is required, that is no later than 3 months from the date of the service of the notice,”.

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

I move amendment No. 53:

In page 17, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:“(4) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) and (3) of this section, all licence decisions shall issue within 8 weeks of all the required information being provided by the applicant.”.

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

Amendments Nos. 54 to 60a, inclusive, and 66b are related. Amendment No. 58 is a logical alternative to amendment No. 57. All of the amendments will be discussed together.

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

I move amendment No. 54a:

In page 18, line 18, after “road” to insert the following:

“and, in the opinion of the owner, is dangerous to persons using the public road on account of its age or condition”.

The purpose of amendment No. 60a is to ensure there is no ambiguity between the provisions of section 19 and any other legislative requirements governing the removal of trees. In other words, if restrictions are placed on the removal of trees by other legislation, the provisions of section 19 will not apply.

Amendment No. 66b is a technical amendment inserted by the Office of the Attorney General and involves the rewording of the text to make the intention of the subsection clearer. It does not alter the intention of the original text.

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

Amendment No. 57 has been discussed already with amendment No. 54a.

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

I move amendment No. 57:

In page 18, line 32, after “ground” to insert “or is not a hedgerow and/or landscape of historical, ecological importance”.

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

Amendment No. 60 has been discussed already with amendment No. 54a.

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

I move amendment No. 60:

In page 18, to delete line 38, and in page 19, to delete lines 1 to 6 and substitute the following:“(2) A tree—

(a) within the curtilage or attendant grounds of a protected structure under Chapter 1 of Part IV of the Act of 2000,

(b) within an area subject to a special amenity area order,

(c) within a landscape conservation area under section 204 of the Act of 2000,

(d) within—

(i) a monument or place recorded under section 12 of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act 1994,

(ii) a historic monument or archaeological area entered in the Register of Historic Monuments under section 5 of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act 1987, or

(iii) a national monument in the ownership or guardianship of the Minister for the Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht under the National Monuments Acts 1930 to 1994,

(e) within a European Site or a natural heritage area within the meaning of Regulation 2(1) of the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 (S.I. No. 477 of 2011), or

(f) which is more than 150 years old,

shall not be an exempted tree, unless it is a tree to which—

(i) any of paragraphs (a) to (l), or paragraph (n), of subsection (1), or

(ii) subparagraph (i), (ii), (iv) or (v) of subsection (1)(m),

applies.”.

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

Amendment No. 60a has been discussed already with amendment No. 54a.

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

I move amendment No. 60a:

In page 19, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:“(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as removing any restriction on the felling or removal of trees under—

(a) the Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2013,

(b) the Wildlife Acts 1976 to 2000, and in particular section 40 of the Wildlife Act 1976, or

(c) any other enactment.”.

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

I move amendment No. 60b:

In page 19, to delete lines 9 and 10 and substitute the following:“ “urban area” means any area that the Minister prescribes for the purposes of this section and an area that comprised a town or borough under the Local Government Act 2001 before the amendment of that Act by the Local Government Reform Act 2014 may, without prejudice to the Minister’s power to prescribe an area comprising a similar or greater conurbation for those purposes, be prescribed for the purposes of this definition.”.

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

I move amendment No. 61:

In page 19, to delete lines 23 to 36, and in page 20, to delete lines 1 to 6.

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

Amendment No. 61a has been discussed already with amendment No. 16b.

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

I move amendment No. 61a:

In page 20, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:

“PART 5

AFFORESTATION, FOREST ROAD WORKS AND AERIAL FERTILISATION OF FORESTS

Granting of licences by Minister for afforestation and certain other activities

22. (1) Subject to section 7, where a person wishes to undertake afforestation, forest road works or aerial fertilisation of forests, he or she shall apply to the Minister for a licence to do so.(2) An application under subsection (1) shall specify—

(a) the name and address of the applicant,

(b) the name and address of the owner of the lands concerned (if different from the person referred to in paragraph (a)),

(c) the location of the lands concerned, and

(d) such other particulars as may be prescribed by the Minister.

(3) (a) The licence shall be valid for such period as is prescribed by the Minister.

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), the Minister may extend the duration of the licence for one or more further periods.

(c) During the period of the licence the licence shall enure for the benefit of the land and any owner thereof.

(4) The Minister may at any time attach or vary conditions to any licence granted.

(5) In considering applications for a licence, the Minister may—

(a) consult any person whom the Minister considers to be appropriate, and

(b) require the applicant to submit any maps or other documentation in such format (including electronic format) as the Minister may require.

(6) The Minister may require satisfactory evidence demonstrating that the applicant is—

(a) the owner of the lands concerned, or

(b) acting with the consent of, and on behalf of, the owner.

(7) A person who—

(a) undertakes afforestation, forest road works or aerial fertilisation, or

(b) causes or permits afforestation, forest road works or aerial fertilisation to take place,

without a licence, or in contravention of a condition of a licence, shall be guilty of an offence and be liable—

(i) on summary conviction, to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both, or

(ii) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €500,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both.

(8) The Minister may make regulations governing the issuing of licences in relation to—

(a) afforestation,

(b) forest road works, and

(c) aerial fertilisation of forests.

(9) Regulations made by the Minister under this section may—

(a) prescribe the format of any application for a licence,

(b) require that—

(i) specific information relating to the site concerned including location, soil type, elevation, aspect, exposure and vegetation type,

(ii) details relating to exclusion zones, fertiliser storage areas, all aquatic zones or abstraction points for known sources of water for human consumption, and

(iii) such other particulars, if any, as the Minister considers necessary for the purpose,

shall be provided to the Minister,

(c) prescribe the placement of public notices on all sites where afforestation, forest road works or aerial fertilisation of forests is proposed,

(d) provide for the publication of decisions made in respect of licence applications,

and

(e) provide for any matters ancillary or incidental to matters in this section.”.

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

I move amendment No. 62:

In page 20, line 11, after “officers” to insert “competent in the area of forestry regulation”.

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

I move amendment No. 62a:

In page 23, to delete lines 13 to 38, and in page 24, to delete lines 1 to 8.

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

I move amendment No. 64:

In page 24, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:“(3) If the Minister proposes to make regulations prescribing fees referred to in subsection (1), the Minister shall cause a draft of the proposed regulations to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas, together with a statement of the Minister outlining the content, purpose and likely implications of the proposed regulations and including such other information (if any) as the Minister considers appropriate.

(4) If within such period as the Minister considers reasonable to allow for recommendations of this kind to be made by each such House (not being less than the period specified in subsection (5)) either House of the Oireachtas (or a committee of such House) makes recommendations to the Minister in relation to the draft of the

proposed regulations, the Minister shall consider the recommendations and may, as he or she thinks appropriate—

(a) make the regulations in the terms of the draft laid pursuant to subsection (3), or

(b) modify the terms of the draft so laid and make the regulations in the terms as so modified.

(5) The period referred to in subsection (4) is the period of 21 days on which the House of the Oireachtas concerned next sits after the draft of the regulations is laid before it.

(6) Subsections (3) to (5) apply to regulations amending regulations that prescribe fees referred to in subsection (1) as they apply to regulations prescribing such fees.”.

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

I move amendment No. 65:

In page 24, to delete lines 20 to 24 and substitute the following:

“26. (1) Where trees have been—(a) felled or otherwise removed without a licence under section 7,

(b) felled under a licence and, either at the time of such felling or subsequently, a condition of the licence is contravened, or

(c) in the opinion of the Minister, seriously damaged,

the Minister may issue a replanting order in respect of the owner requiring him or her to replant or to fulfil any or all of the conditions that attached to the licence (or, in a case in which no licence was granted, any or all of the conditions that would, in the opinion of the Minister, have been attached to a licence had such been granted) in accordance with the provisions of the order.”.

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

Amendment No. 65a has been discussed already with amendment No. 16c.

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

I move amendment No. 65a:

In page 25, line 19, to delete “loan,”.

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

I move amendment No. 66:

In page 25, line 25, to delete “A person” and substitute “A person under whose direction the activities are being conducted”.

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

I move amendment No. 66a:

In page 25, line 26, after “provisions” to insert “(for which contravention an offence is not provided elsewhere in this Act)”.

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

Amendment No. 66b has been discussed already with amendment No. 54.

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

I move amendment No. 66b:

In page 27, line 32, to delete “the addition of, or deletion from, a paragraph from” and substitute “the addition of a paragraph to, or the deletion of a paragraph from,”.

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

Amendment No. 68 has been discussed already with amendment No. 6.

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

I move amendment No. 68:

In page 29, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:“(p) facilitating the development of a competitive timber industry and employment in rural Ireland;

(q) promoting and facilitating the provision of a sufficient supply of sawlog to meet the requirements of the timber industry.”.

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

Amendment No. 68a has been discussed already with amendment No. 16.

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

I move amendment No. 68a:

In page 30, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:“(7) The Minister may make regulations with respect to the making of grants in relation to an activity specified in any of paragraphs (a) to (g) of section 5(1).”.

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

Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 are logical alternatives and will be discussed together by agreement.

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

I move amendment No. 69:

In page 30, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:

“31. Provision shall be made for a review of the Forestry Act 1988 to redefine Coillte objectives and operations.”.

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

I move amendment No. 71:

In page 31, to delete line 1 and substitute the following:“(2) Section 39 of the Wildlife Act 1976 is amended by substituting for subsection (6) the following:

“(6) In this section ‘wood’ includes a forest within the meaning of section 2 of the Forestry Act 2014.”.”.

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

Amendment No. 71a has been discussed already with amendment No. 41a.

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

I move amendment No. 71a:

In page 31, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:“Compensation for refusal of felling licence, etc

32. (1) The Minister shall, as soon as practicable after the commencement of this section, make regulations providing for the payment by the Minister of compensation to a person in a case where an application by the person for a licence—

(a) to fell or otherwise remove trees,

(b) to undertake forest road works, or

(c) to undertake afforestation,

is refused, but only if that refusal has been the subject of appeal and that refusal has been upheld on the appeal, or appeals, being finally disposed of.

(2) Regulations under this section shall not be made otherwise than with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.

(3) Without prejudice to the subsequent provisions of this section, a payment of compensation under regulations under this section shall not be made otherwise than on foot of an application in that behalf made to the Minister, being an application that is—

(a) in the form directed by the Minister to be used for the time being for this purpose, and

(b) made—

(i) not earlier than before such time or the happening of such event as is specified in the regulations, nor

(ii) later than such time or the happening of such event as is so specified,

and, as respects such an application, the regulations may provide that at the time of the making of it or at any subsequent time (and before the determination of the application) the applicant shall furnish to the Minister such documents or information, or such further documents or information, as the Minister may require.

(4) Without prejudice to subsections (9) to (11) and (14), regulations under this section may contain a provision that no compensation shall be payable under the regulations where the reason for the refusal to grant the licence concerned falls within any description of reason specified in that provision for the purpose.

(5) No description of reason shall be specified in such a provision for that purpose unless the description of reason either has, as its basis, a basis set out in subsection (6) or complies with the requirement of subsection (8) (or both has the foregoing basis and complies with that requirement).

(6) The basis referred to in subsection (5) is one that is reasonably related to any of the following:

(a) the protection of the environment;

(b) the ensuring of good forestry practice;

(c) the preservation of amenities;

(d) public health or safety;

(e) protection from flooding;

(f) preservation of water quality.

(7) In subsection (6)(b) “good forestry practice” means forestry practice that respects the principle that the diverse activities constituting forestry (including afforestation) must be planned and implemented in a manner that prevents, limits, abates or reduces significant adverse impacts or risks thereof on—

(a) the environment (and, in particular, on significant ecosystems and important habitats for flora or fauna), and

(b) the character of the landscape.

(8) The requirement referred to in subsection (5) is that the description of reason concerned is expressed in terms that are identical or analogous to the terms in which a reason appearing in any paragraph of the Fourth Schedule to the Planning and Development Act 2000 is expressed in that Schedule.

(9) Regulations under this section shall contain a provision that no compensation shall be payable under the regulations where the reason for the refusal to grant the licence concerned was that—

(a) the application for the licence was incomplete in any material particular, or

(b) any environmental impact statement, natura impact statement or other information submitted for the purposes of the application for the licence was, in the opinion of the Minister, inadequate.

(10) Subject to any reasonable qualification or modification of the following provisions of this subsection that the Minister considers should be provided for in the regulations to meet particular classes of case (and without prejudice to the provisions of the regulations referred to in subsections (11) and (12)), regulations under this section shall contain the following provisions with respect to determining the amount of compensation payable under the regulations—

(a) in the case of a refusal to grant a licence to fell or otherwise remove trees or to undertake forest road works, compensation shall be calculated on the basis of 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,

(b) in the case of a refusal to grant a licence to undertake afforestation, compensation shall be calculated on the basis of the reduction in value between the antecedent and subsequent values of the land, where—

(i) the antecedent value of the land is the amount which the land, if sold in the open market by a willing seller immediately prior to the relevant decision (assuming that the relevant application had not been made), might have been expected to realise, and

(ii) the subsequent value of the land is the amount which the land, if sold in the open market by a willing seller immediately after that decision, might be expected to realise.

(11) Regulations under this section shall contain a provision—

(a) in relation to a case referred to in subsection (10)(a), that no compensation shall be payable in respect of any deterioration in the quality of the timber that—

(i) took place more than 10 years before the date of the application for compensation, or

(ii) is due to any unforeseen event of a kind specified in the regulations, or neglect of the trees, occurring subsequent to the refusal of the application for the licence concerned,

(b) that not more than one application for compensation under the regulations may be made in respect of the same parcel of land (irrespective of the type of licence under this Act applied for) in any period of 40 years.

(12) Regulations under this section shall contain such provisions, by way of enabling abatement of sums or otherwise, as appear to the Minister to be necessary or expedient to prevent the result specified in subsection (13) where, under any scheme or administrative arrangement, the payment of public moneys to the applicant is provided in respect of an activity to which this Act relates.

(13) The result mentioned in subsection (12) is that in consequence of—

(a) the applicant’s being refused the grant of the licence concerned, and

(b) the regulations’ operation (if the regulations did not contain the foregoing provisions and the applicant were to be paid compensation under the regulations in respect of that refusal),

the applicant would be in receipt of an amount of public moneys that is greater than the amount of such moneys that the applicant would be in receipt of if his or her application for the licence concerned had been granted.

(14) Regulations under this section—

(a) may provide that if the amount of compensation claimed by the applicant, or the amount of compensation determined under the regulations on foot of his or her application, (in each case after the abatement (if any) required to be made pursuant to the provision of the regulations referred to in subsection (12)), is less than such minimum amount as is specified in the regulations for the purpose, no payment of compensation in respect of that application shall be made,

(b) may contain such incidental, consequential or supplemental provisions as the Minister considers necessary or expedient (including provision for the referral to arbitration of the determination of the amount of any compensation payable or alleged to be payable).”.

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

I move amendment No. 72:

In page 31, to delete lines 19 to 23.

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

There are only a small number of minutes remaining and I am unsure whether there are any other amendments because I cannot get a copy of the list.

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

That is it.

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

I welcome that the Minister of State saw the light on this amendment. As the Minister of State is aware, I have had major reservations going back a long time. This time, whoever gave the Minister of State the advice gave him good advice, although he probably did not get advice on this one. I imagine he did this one himself.