Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach. The concern is that any new fees will be set at a level that will discourage the making of appeals. Based on the Minister of State's own admission that the appeals system is overloaded, this is a concern for individual citizens who may be on low incomes or for groups with an interest in the environment or forestry who may make multiple appeals at the same time and who may struggle with the cumulative cost attached to such appeals. Our concern, therefore, is that the cost of the appeals will not be set at a level that is appropriate or proportionate to the cost of actually processing the appeal, which is why we have tabled these amendments today.

As the Minister of State will be aware, under the Aarhus Convention, we have an obligation to facilitate and indeed encourage the access of citizens to environmental planning, and it is specifically stated in Article 9 of the convention that countries that are party to it shall provide "adequate and effective remedies, including injunctive relief as appropriate, and be fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive". As the Minister of State will see from our amendments today, we have drawn directly some of the language from the text of the convention. I hope that, purely on those grounds, she would consider accepting them.

In the amendments in this group we have tried to provide the Minister of State with a number of options on how she might improve the fees section. If she were to accept even one amendment, it would provide key reassurance to the stakeholders involved that she is listening to their concerns.

Amendment No. 83 would require the Minister to provide for a full refund of an appeal if the appeal was eventually successful. I am not sure if amendment No. 83 was ruled out of order. In amendment No. 84 I have drawn language straight from the Aarhus Convention to ensure that any fees that are set would be fair, equitable, not prohibitively expensive and would not discourage the making of an appeal in the first place.

In amendment No. 85 I have set out a number of key points that the Minister should consider when setting the level of fees, including the importance of promoting public participation in the forestry sector, our international obligations, the importance of public involvement in environmental planning, the public good afforded by experts, and the public being able to make appeals. This is a particularly important amendment due to the extraordinary lack of detail the Minister of State has provided on how she will set the level of those fees. As she will be aware, it has been affirmed in multiple decisions in our courts that when the Oireachtas gives a Minister power to set key regulations, such as fees via secondary legislation, the Oireachtas must set out the principles and policies that underlie how the power is exercised.

In this section 14F the Minister of State has not set out any factors that will influence how she will set these fees. Without such detail, any fees she sets under the section could actually be struck out by the courts on such grounds.It would therefore be in the Minister of State's interest to accept an amendment in this vein and I urge her to do so. If accepted, amendment No. 82 would give the Oireachtas a role in approving the proposed fees. I should be clear that I do not want a circumstance where every single fee has to receive our approval in the House but where the Minister of State has set out no limits, principles, policies or oversight mechanisms for these fees, it may be one of the few options remaining. Finally, amendment No. 86 provides that along with prescribing fees for appeals, the Minister of State would also prescribe a scheme that would allow for a waiver of the fee where the appellant was in circumstances of financial hardship and could not afford the fee as a result. It seems a reasonable ask on behalf of those who are worried about their access to environmental justice on the grounds of cost, and would prevent inability to pay from being a barrier to participating in the forestry planning system. We have given the Minister of State a number of options, along with the amendments tabled by other colleagues, for how to proceed on the fees issue and I urge her to accept even one of them to indicate that she is listening to the concerns and how they could create a barrier to participation in this important sector.