Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I do not wish to stray to amendment No. 36 unnecessarily. Amendment No. 33 is a simple opportunity to delete those relevant lines. Again, this is not a provision that existed previously. It is an additional requirement being placed on appellants. The Minister of State has the right to remove it and it would be a better Bill if she did so. Amendment No. 32 deals with the same issues of directives.

Those are the issues, and I ask the Minister of State to address them. That part refers to the person's rights, but I wish to speak briefly about the second part. It is normal in any administrative process and, indeed, in any legal or court process, that decisions would be made on the best information available. It is the case, even in a court of law where there is a review, that where additional information that is particularly expedient and important becomes available, it is introduced. If, for example, information is returned which shows there are only two or three remaining of certain species, and that environmental information is only provided a day or two after the person has lodged his or her appeal, it is extremely relevant for the forestry appeals committee to be aware of it.There may be serious biodiversity issues. There may be other issues of considerable social or public concern. Relevant information may arise in the course of an appeal. It would behove an appeals committee that is functioning properly to consider this. Such a committee should be entitled to the best available information when making decisions. By setting this preclusion on the appellant, the Minister of State is effectively allowing or forcing the forestry appeals committee to make decisions on certain occasions without the information it needs to make good and proper decisions.