Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 11 to 18, inclusive, are being taken together. All of them relate to timing. With regard to access to justice and people's rights, under the Aarhus Convention and other instruments, it is important that nothing effectively obstruct participation in an appeals process. The proposal of 60 days is reasonable. Forty-two days at least goes beyond a single month in terms of applications, which is good. The question of notification, which is covered in amendments Nos. 14 and 13, is important. A decision may have been made but the question is whether a person will have received notification of it. The proposal simply suggests a period within 28 days of a person who previously engaged in the process being notified of the decision. There are many cases where people assume and hope the licensing authorities will make a responsible decision that will reflect all the various environmental factors and that they are not, in fact, planning at an early stage. It is expected that an application will be rejected if it proves to be out of line with our biodiversity or environmental criteria and it may be only at the point at which one is notified of a decision of the licensing authority that one seeks to launch an appeal and take on the considerable burden, as a concerned individual or member of a group, of challenging a decision. In the majority of cases, most individuals would like to believe the State would do that work. Therefore, it is not the case that individuals appeal from the very beginning. People will expect the best of standards and sometimes find they have to step in by way of an appeal.

On amendment No. 15, the Minister of State said 28 days is enough. A major concern is that the amendment provides that it might be only 14 days. The provision is that the Minister of State may narrow the period in which somebody may make an appeal to 14 days after a decision. With the greatest of respect, a period 14 days is too short. If people ever have a holiday again, a period of 14 days will be regarded as longer than that. Realistically, especially when the period is not combined with the requirement on notification, somebody might receive notification only a week before the deadline for lodging an application or concern. Irrespective of whether the Minister of State wishes to accept the amendments that expand the period from 28 days, amendment No. 16, in my name and that of Senator Boyhan and others, simply suggests that the Minister might allow for the expansion of the period. At the most basic level, the Minister of State could choose to delete the provision that narrows the period but, ideally, she should accept amendment No. 16, which states that she may prescribe a longer period in certain circumstances. The current lockdown is such a circumstance in that there are entire counties people cannot enter or exit. What might that mean for persons who might be interested or who may have to check, connect or work with others in making an appeal? Many rural counties with many afforestation plans will be affected by such measures. In those circumstances, the Minister of State should be able to extend the period. I hope she will ensure it is not narrowed. I do not believe there is a proviso in the Bill for extending the period and that in may only be narrowed. Could the Minister of State clarify whether she has the power to extend it in certain circumstances?

Amendment No. 17 is possibly one of the most important in that the Minister of State talked about the importance of a portal. We were asked to change the name of the Bill to the Forestry (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which should mean it could be anything to do with forestry. I am referring specifically to the portal and the need for persons to have access to appropriate information.Amendment No. 17 suggests that the measures outlined here should not take place before there is an online portal in order that people can definitely see them. The Minister of State has said measures are published on the website but this is not the same as an online portal. The Minister of State has acknowledged, through seeking to add in the Bill measures regarding an online portal and seeking to change the name of the Bill to recognise this, the importance and need for a more appropriate information source and information portal. Surely it would be appropriate that this would be in place because one of the key issues as to why 28 days is not enough for people is that many persons may be seeking through a freedom of information request access to crucial environmental information that may be with various public and State bodies and that would allow them to make their submissions. We will have later amendments on which we will discuss this specific issue.

With the new requirement that all paperwork relating to an appeal be submitted at the exact beginning point of the appeal, the Minister of State is not simply requiring, unless she chooses to change provisions that appear later in the Bill, that people would express and lodge their appeal within 28 days, she is requiring them to have every piece of paperwork they might need in respect of it within 28 days, which is likely to be unduly burdensome.