Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 5, line 30, after “grounds.” to insert the following: “An appellant shall be allowed to furnish additional information to an appeal where the provision of that information has been compromised by delays in the processing of requests made under Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information.”.

The Minister of State wondered aloud why, after the category of relevant person had been removed, people still regarded the Bill as an obstruction. One concern is that while there may not be explicit exclusion of categories of person, and I am glad to hear the Minister of State's assurance that there will not be in the future and that the forestry appeals committee is not mandated to exclude certain categories of person, there are other obstacles. It has been recognised substantially in European case law that there are many other ways in which an effective obstacle to access to justice or to participation in a process might occur. We have discussed the issue of timing and we will shortly discuss the issue of fees, each of which have been acknowledged. There is proof on record of where those issues have been acknowledged as effectively acting as obstacles. There is another issue which I wish to highlight in this set of amendments. These are not simply obstacles to persons in terms of their participation in the appeals process. They are also obstacles to due process in the forestry appeals committee and, potentially, obstacles to the quality of decision making of the committee. It is not simply an issue regarding individuals' rights, but an issue for everyone in the State, including the Minister of State, and for the integrity of the process. Specifically, I refer to the requirement in section 4(4) which states: "An appellant shall, when making an appeal, state all of the grounds upon which the appeal is made and provide to the Forestry Appeals Committee all of the documents and evidence upon which he or she intends to rely to support those grounds."

There are two concerns here. I have tabled an amendment which seeks to remove those lines. This is a new requirement or obstacle that has been inserted. I have also tabled amendments which seek to recognise that in many cases persons, especially given a 28-day or 14-day period in which to lodge an appeal as provided for in this Bill, may be awaiting information that they are entitled to under European directives giving access to environmental information. Putting a requirement on them to provide information in respect of an appeal when they are still awaiting that information through, for example, a freedom of information request or an access to environmental information request, would be inappropriate and could be questioned in regard to the Aarhus Convention and, indeed, to the access of justice as an unnecessary intervention in the process. This is yet another opportunity for the Minister of State to change the timing in exceptional circumstances, which, as we discussed earlier, she might need to do. There are many other circumstances.

Amendment No. 34 proposes: "Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing subsections, an appellant or party to an appeal or observer shall be allowed to furnish additional information to an appeal where the provision of that information has been compromised by delays in the processing of requests made under Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information." We have serious mechanisms, European directives, which require that people have access to environmental information which they can use to engage meaningfully in planning and decision processes. That is their entitlement, yet there is a provision in this Bill which potentially does not allow them to exercise that right fully. If the Minister of State accepts this amendment, she would go further towards ensuring that the Bill addresses the issues at hand, which are the issues of ensuring due process and that environmental factors are seen to be considered properly at every stage of the forestry process for licensing and appeals. I urge the Minister of State to accept amendment No. 34.

Amendment No. 35 is quite similar. Is amendment No. 36 in this group?