Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

As I understand it, we are addressing amendments Nos. 54 to 71, inclusive, together. On amendment No. 54, my main concern does not relate primarily to the idea of the Minister giving policy directives. That may be appropriate and it may allow for an evolving policy so I am not strictly against the Minister giving policy directives. There may be call for it and that is why I supported that amendment. My main concern is the removal of that section if section 14D(2) was still in play. Section 14D(2) is my real concern. Section 14D(1) indicates that the Minister may give general directives to policy. Section 14D(2) narrows, however, and says what must be prioritised in that. With respect to Senator Lombard and others, I agree that there are times when there will be economic priorities and particular issues and concerns around particular classes of appeals in relation to economic issues or a need for a larger turnover or volume of product, for example. However, this Bill is not simply for one group of people in one month or in one six-month period. It is for the setting out of how our forestry appeals mechanisms will work and it is for the Minister to set policy. There are many policy priorities and there will and should be times when other policy priorities might be set. It would be inappropriate if a single goal were specifically placed over others as it is at the moment. I put in 17 variations of amendments to this section because of these two lines in section 14D(2). I do not know if they were asked for by industry, as mentioned by Senator Lombard, or where they came from but we know they were not in the heads of the Bill-----