Seanad debates

Thursday, 16 October 2014

Forestry Bill 2013: Report and Final Stages

 

11:40 am

Photo of Sean BarrettSean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

In response to Senator Ó Domhnaill we did try to separate the different categories of trees in amendment No. 2 on Committee Stage but that did not work. That is why we re-submitted it today in a different form. I agree that where the trees are felled without a licence is a more serious case than where the licence is merely contravened. In the last of the three cases, where it is seriously damaged, for example, by a storm, the owner would be relatively innocent. That is why we tried to run them together. The purpose of the amendment is that we shall replace such trees, in particular those which are knocked down without a licence. The fine is inadequate but society wants the trees back. The explanation that putting trees back beside a river could damage the fish stocks when they are merely replacing trees that were there before is a mystery. What mysterious ingredients are in the new trees that would damage the fish stocks when the previous trees had no impact? The legislation could require that the trees be replaced by the same varieties in which case the fish will not be in danger.

On the second amendment I fully agree with the Minister of State that it is a matter of individual judgment but I prefer trees to stumps. That is my judgment and I want to get rid of the stumps as fast as possible to get the trees growing again. I hope the Minister of State and whoever succeeds him will always favour trees over stumps.

I appreciate what the Minister of State says about flexibility. I hope that generates a new spirit in this area, which is on we have tended to neglect. It has a great future. The spirit of co-operation is important. We have to protect the trees in both cases, requiring them to be replaced and that it be done in a timely manner. People in the industry should not think they can knock down a forest and leave ugly stumps around and so on and not participate with the same enthusiasm as the Minister of State in having a national forest playing an environmental, commercial and visual role. We cherish trees and do not want them to be treated in the cavalier way which these amendments are designed to correct and which the Minister of State wants to correct.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.