Deputy Máirín Quill is in possession and the Deputy has 25 minutes left of the time allotted to her.
Private Members' Business. - Local Government (Planning and Development) (Trees and Woodlands) Bill, 1987: Second Stage. (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I contributed at the end of this debate last week and I had the pleasure of complimenting the Government on the recent action they have taken in relation to Coolattin. I have been asked by my party colleague, Deputy Geraldine Kennedy, and by other people to ask the Government to ensure that the action which they promised in relation to Tomnafinnogue woods will be carried out forcibly so that no further felling of trees will take place at that location. At the close of the debate last week I said that we, the Progressive Democrats, support fully this Private Members' Bill as introduced by the Labour Party. We will work as enthusiastically as we can to ensure that this Bill becomes law and that its provisions will be enforced as rigidly and as adequately as possible.
I want to address myself to two main aspects of this Bill. The first one is the provision made in section 2 to include under the existing planning law trees comprised in woodlands. Under existing law such woodlands cannot be made the subject of tree preservation orders, nor can felling licences be refused without compensation being paid. Therein has lain the source of our problem with Coolattin over the years. The provisions relating to liability for compensation in relation to tree preservation orders are set out in sections 40 to 45(2) of the Planning Act, 1963.
In summary, the present position is that the refusal of a consent to fell, or a consent to fell with conditions, can give rise to a claim for compensation. The only exemption from this compensation clause applies to single trees or groups of trees that are not, and I am quoting from the Act, "comprised in woodlands". Under existing law there is no real protection for trees laid out in a woodland setting, irrespective of the high amenity or ecological value of such woodlands unless local authorities are in a position to pay huge sums in compensation, an option clearly not feasible with the present constraints on local authorities and when most local authorities do not even have enough money to sweep the streets. Surely this option is not wise at any time if, as a nation, we are to arrange our priorities correctly.
The remedy seems to be contained in section 2, that is, to bring trees comprised in woodlands under the scope of the existing Act and make them subject to the same provisions as are already extended to single trees and trees arranged in some groups, that is, liable to tree preservation orders without liability for compensation. That requirement is sought under section 2 of this Bill and we fully support the request for that requirement. That is the first part of the Bill to which I want to pledge my support.
It seems the next obstacle to be overcome is the question that may arise in relation to compensation. The question of the prior rights of private property will inevitably arise. Indeed, it has already arisen under the Government's response to this Bill and in the assertion that the Attorney General's opinion is that the Bill would not withstand a challenge on constitutional grounds. I find this response quite alarming. It represents, for me, the narrowest and the meanest possible interpretation of our Constitution and, in my view, does little justice to the framers of that document who had a vision of what constitutes the common good in a society with clearly defined values.
It is, of course, quite right to acknowledge that Article 43 of the Constitution is quite specific on the issue of private ownership of property. It gives the assurance that: "The State accordingly guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the rights of private ownership..." Even within the Constitution that requirement is not absolute. Immediately the following clause states: "The State recognises, however, that the exercise of the rights mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this Article ought, in civil society, to be regulated by the principles of social justice." More significantly and more relevant to the discussion this evening is the next subsection of that clause which states: "The State, accordingly, may as occasion requires delimit by law the exercise of the said rights with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good." This clause is the small print as far as this Bill is concerned. This is the clause to which we should direct the attention of the Government.
The Progressive Democrats see no conflict between what is being asked for in this Bill and what is clearly stated in that clause of the Constitution. If the Government or the Attorney General feel that we are sailing close to the wind, let the onus be on the other party to bring a test case before our courts and let us have the courage to contest that case. If we are serious about the preservation of our heritage for God's sake let us not do the cowardly thing and shelter behind the shield of our Constitution under the pretext that we cannot confront the issue that has arisen in Coolattin and that will inevitably arise in other parts of the country.
Other countries, notably Sweden, have long since resolved the conflict between the right of private ownership and the prior claims of items of heritage importance. It is high time that we grasped the nettle. If we want to see how it is done, we need look no further than Sweden where the issue was settled quite properly more than 300 years ago. We are quite prepared to confront the Constitution on this issue. We do not think, if the Constitution is read and examined properly, there is any real battle.
For me the Bill takes on an urgent relevance because of the recent proposals to locate an extensive holiday complex on Fota Island in Cork harbour. Fota is an island of outstanding natural beauty and is in very many ways unique in this island and acknowledged to be so in many reports prepared for Cork County Council by An Foras Forbartha and other equally authoritative bodies. The arboretum at Fota, because of its climate and sheltered situation, is able to grow a range of rare materials, at least as wideranging as anywhere else in the world. It is one of the oldest arboretums extant and many of its specimens are older and finer than those found in Kew Gardens. It contains at least one plant which is the only example of its kind growing in Ireland and which is on the international endangered specimen list. Many other species, notably the redwood, have reached record proportions.
In this arboretum there is a museum of beautiful trees without parallel in any other part of the world. This arboretum is located in a setting of native trees and exotic flora and fauna with rare and beautiful insect and bird life. It provides an invaluable location for ecological study and research. All of this is situated scarcely a stone's throw away from the University City of Cork. Surely this is a very rich resource and not one to be overlooked. Because of its nature it is a delicate living thing and needs great care and protection. It is incumbent on all of us to ensure that it continues to get the level of care and protection that will ensure its existence. Recently the island has become the subject of bitter controversy with proposals to locate an extensive holiday complex on the island. The scale of this complex will be better understood when I explain that among other buildings it is proposed to put 335 holiday-type chalets on the island.
The extent of this can be better understood when we consider the nature of the roadway and the excavation that must take place to service a building development of that size. This development must be viewed with grave disquiet by anybody who has any respect for what is on the island already. Many experts would argue if this development goes on all life on the island will be put at risk, will suffer and much of it will die. If the shelter on the perimeter of the island, which is made up mainly of native trees, disappears it is argued that the future of the arboretum, the future of bird life, insect life, flora and fauna on the island will be put at risk and will die a slow death. Surely that is a high price to pay for a development of any kind and certainly for a development that could easily take place on any other part of the coastline of County Cork within reach of the island.
I see in this Bill a measure that could arrest the destruction of Fota Island and could give to the trees a measure of protection which would ensure their existence. That perhaps more than any other reason, though there are others, is why I support this Bill. I plead with all the sides of the House to support this Bill to ensure that it gets a very speedy passage through both Houses of the Oireachtas and that it becomes law. I hope when it becomes law that its provisions are enforced consistently and rigidly. We have a sad history where our woods are concerned. We have talked a lot in recent years about Coolattin but our history of wood felling did not begin there. In the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries when Walter Raleigh, and people of his time, had cut down large tracts of woodland, and had the wood therefrom sold for commercial gain, the people of Ireland mourned their woods very poignantly in a song that is well known to you, a Cheann Comhairle —"Cad a dhéanfaimid feasta gan adhmad. Tá deireadh na gcoillte ar lár". There have been many times since we got our independence when the same sentiments could have been put to music. Let us not continue to do to ourselves what we deplored others having done to us.
In conclusion I should like to say that if this Bill is adopted and becomes law a succeeding generation will not be singing that song but will instead be singing a celebration of our woods because what is left of our ancient and historic woods will be saved.
I am glad of the opportunity to speak in support of this Bill which is a Private Members' Bill presented in my name. Perhaps I might explain to the House the background and the reasons for this Bill. Even though this Bill refers to a debate which has been going on for some time in relation to the woods in County Wicklow I believe this is a long overdue debate on a far broader issue. This is an issue which will continue to trouble us and will require clarification in relation to the exercise of rights over personal property, the extent and the necessity of delimiting those personal rights and balancing those rights as against the rights of the people as a whole. That is a question which will continue into the foreseeable future.
Our Constitution has been questioned and examined in detail for the past 20 years and many legal volumes are accumulating seeking to clarify exactly the various rights and the extent of those rights. It is necessary that this clarification should continue because I do not believe, and certainly my party do not believe, that the interpretation of the Constitution and the attributing of weight to the various conflicting rights has been done in an evenhanded manner. It has not been done in the spirit in which I believe the people who framed the Constitution in 1936 and 1937 had intended it to be exercised. It is necessary to reform or overhaul our Constitution, now in its fiftieth year, to cope with the passage of time. This will obviously be a central area to any reform of the Constitution which might take place. I am not particularly optimistic, I have to admit, that this review of the Constitution will take place. I am concerned because the drift of Irish politics seems to indicate that about 90 per cent of our public representatives consider themselves to be of right wing thinking and that thinking would dominate in any new Constitution. As somebody reminded me recently we might be better settling for what was a relatively broad Constitution, in fact, a very far-thinking Constitution which was framed in 1937.
This Bill is doubly important, first, because of the immediate difficulties in relation to the Coolattin Woods in County Wicklow and second, regarding the overall question of constitutional rights and balance being achieved between those rights.
I am somewhat disappointed, to say the least, at the reaction of the Government to this Bill. Of course the Government may claim they are being consistent in their reaction to Private Members' Bills, because I was absolutely astounded at their refusal to accept the Private Members' Bill put forward by the Fine Gael Party some weeks ago in relation to the laws on adoption. There was absolutely no foundation or logical basis for the Government's refusal to accept that Bill which was put forward in good faith. Likewise, I do not believe that the Government have good grounds for refusing this Bill here this evening. I think that the idea of Private Members' Bills has not been properly developed in this House because there seems to be a reluctance on the part of the Government to take on board the ideas that come forward in such Bills. In framing this Bill, I was very conscious of and allowed myself to be guided by reference to the difficulties that have arisen in interpreting our Constitution down through the years. With my experience and legal training and the experience of those people whose advice was made available to me, I feel I can put forward people of the same quality and calibre as those offering advice to the Government at present. I do not think that the advice coming forward to the Government has in fact given the Government or the Minister for the Environment the armoury necessary to convince me and indeed many members of this House of any weaknesses in this Bill.
I welcome the support being offered by the Progressive Democratic Party. While we do not see eye to eye on many matters, particularly economic matters, this shows we can support one another where it is of public concern. I am disappointed at the attitude being adopted by the Fine Gael Party but I think they are still suffering from some confusion as to whether they are in or out of Government. Perhaps in due course they will realise what is happening.
The raison d'Etre of the Local Government (Planning and Development) (Trees and Woodlands) Bill, 1987, is to close the major loophole in the 1963 Planning Act and thus protect trees and woodlands which are of outstanding natural beauty and amenity value. I do not think anyone in this House would question the importance of the areas involved and the necessity of preserving the Tomnafinnogue Wood at Coolattin. There are four units there — the riverside walk, the open oak plantation, the oak forest and the oak forest infested with rhododendrons. Each area has merit in its own right, and some are the richest in the country so far as flora and fauna are concerned and are worth protecting.
Despite economic difficulties I believe we have a responsibility in this area which, unfortunately, has been neglected in the past. Local authorities are experiencing economic pressures — the Minister of State will be familiar with the activities of Bord na Móna in the midlands — and it is important that we achieve a balance. Because of the total disregard for the proper development of our environment, the 1963 Act was introduced. That legislation was of major importance and laid down guidelines to proper planning. In some areas it may have gone into too much detail and it might have been better if we had allowed more flexibility but overall, the 1963 Act was very necessary and long overdue. The 1963 Act was the first stab at solving this problem and providing guidelines for the future planning and development of the country. The time is long overdue for an amendment to that Act.
The principal provision of our planning code, which is directed towards the protection and preservation of trees, is section 45 of the 1963 Act. Under that section planning authorities have the power to make tree preservation orders which will prevent the cutting down of trees unless the local authority give consent. However, where a local authority give consent to the cutting down of trees, a person who has suffered damage as a result can claim compensation. Generally speaking, where trees comprising woodlands are concerned local authorities can only avoid paying compensation by allowing the cutting down of trees without conditions or by attaching conditions related to replanting. Section 2 of the Bill before us will remove that loophole by excluding a right to compensation where a tree preservation order declares that trees comprising woodlands are a special amenity of recreational value, of special interest, of outstanding natural beauty or are part of or comprise any view or prospect of special amenity value or special interest.
There will be a right of appeal to the planning board in the Bill and the right to compensation, but only in certain circumstances which are set out in detail in the Bill. Basically there will be no right to compensation if the planning board decide that trees or woodlands may not be extracted for reasons relating to the amenity value, special interest, natural beauty or age of the trees in question, or if it is in the best interest of the management of the environment that they be preserved. I believe that in this section, I, with the legal advise available to me, have achieved the balance which has been missing in our legislation to date, the balance which I believe the vast majority of right thinking people would wish to see achieved in our laws and in the interpretation of our Constitution.
I do not believe the majority of people would be satisfied with the present position because it is causing distress, inconvenience, a good deal of financial hardship and is putting a curb on the activities of our elected representatives, the executive arms of local authorities and the State by virtue of the fear of compensation at a time when most of our local authorities are under-funded and are in no position to countenance the threat of having to pay compensation in respect of a refusal to grant planning permission.
Obviously one has to respect the rights of individuals, groups and companies — who, in my view, have been over-protected although, hopefully, that will be rectified when the Government introduce the company law legislation — but that respect has to be balanced with the rights of the common good. Unfortunately, there are difficulties in giving expression to the rights of the common good, the same sort of difficulty experienced by the private citizen when he has to deal with the might of multinationals, large companies and corporations and when it comes to trying to vindicate one's personal rights.
This is an area where I believe the State has to intervene and take a major lead. It is also one of the very unsatisfactory areas in terms of law where a private citizen cannot afford the high cost of legal action and is not able to sustain long and extended legal actions against multinational companies, co-operatives and corporations with large resources who can afford to trample on the rights of individuals. The argument put forward by the Minister for the Environment was very weak. He attempted, not very convincingly, to make a legal justification for the Government's attitude in rejecting the Bill. I do not believe any adequate grounds were given in that defence of the opinion of the Attorney General and we will not have a satisfactory defence put forward by the Government.
I intervene to advise the Deputy that he has five minutes left of the time allotted to him.
In the day that is in it I am glad to have any minutes in the House. The important considerations relate not just to Coolattin, which are of enormous importance. Some months ago the Taoiseach, while he did not walk through the woods, had a regal flight over them and expressed interest and concern about them. It was for that reason that I expected the Taoiseach to accept the Bill in the spirit in which it was intended. He had expressed his concern for the preservation of the oak forest. The sad feature about this whole episode is that we have already lost a great deal of the wood and it is of vital importance that all parties should come together to ensure that we save what is left.
I obtained a copy of the planning permission granted by Wicklow County Council in relation to the selective felling and extraction of trees on 66.5 hectares at Tomnafinnogue, Ballykelly, Ballyraheen and Coolattin Park Townland, Shillelagh and I am at a loss to understand the basis on which that permission was granted. There are many conditions which I hope will be implemented in detail. There are requirements of replanting of sections of the wood before any further extractions take place.
I should like to inform the Deputy that I mistook the time earlier and he does not have to conclude his remarks until 8.05 p.m.
Perhaps it is my humble nature but I would gladly have preferred at least 15 minutes on the Finance Bill. The logic of giving 66.5 hectares in an application that was made for twice that amount leaves me wondering if negotiations had been taking place between the authorities in that area and the applicants. Obviously, the requirements of the planning laws are not such for the authority to have to specify the reasons for refusing a certain amount and giving a certain amount but it is unfortunate that any amount of extraction of these trees should be permitted.
Section 3 is a standard section requiring the publication of consents or refusals. Section 4 requires a planning authority to give or refuse their consent to the cutting down, topping, lopping or extraction of trees and will be the subject of an appeal to the planning board by an interested person. The board have full powers under that section to grant or refuse the application and to impose conditions such as the provision of open spaces, landscaping designed to improve the amenity of the lands or conditions requiring planting. We are fortunate to have a body such as An Bord Pleanála who can play a role in difficult and controversial planning matters such as are under examination this evening. It is important that we have an independent body such as An Bord Pleanála who can exercise their decisions removed from either local or personal considerations that might otherwise be brought to bear on difficult planning decisions.
Section 5 specifies in detail the right to compensation to any person whose interest in land, trees or woodlands is reduced by the decision of the planning board to refuse consent to cut down, top, lop or extract trees or by a decision to grant such consent subject to conditions but a right to such compensation is excluded where a decision for such refusal or such consent subject to conditions is given for one or more of the reasons set out in subsection (2). Those conditions are balanced. They are certainly of importance to community groups and groups which tended in the past to be minority groups — they are growing in numbers because of the importance of the preservation and protection of the environment. Those reasons are justifiable. They were not pulled out of the air. A lot of consideration was given to matters which should be under scrutiny when it comes to making conditions on such controversial matters.
The section proposes that compensation shall not be payable where trees are of special amenity value or special interest, or are of outstanding natural beauty or importance which it is in the interests of the common good to conserve. Given the importance of preserving natural beauty in amenity areas the latter is a reasonable provision that will be understood by all but the most selfish and cold-hearted individuals. Compensation will not be payable if the trees are part of or comprise any view or prospect of special amenity value or special interest, if it is premature to cut down the trees having regard to the age and state of maturity of such trees or any adjoining trees or woodlands, if the trees, because of their type or age and the extent, state and condition of such trees constitute a unique or special feature of the natural environment or — this is an important aspect — if considering the extent of trees or woodlands already cut down it would be in the best interest of the proper management of the environment that the trees should not be cut down or interfered with.
The conditions set out in section 5 are reasonable. The vast majority of people, irrespective of their political ideologies or associations or their economic interests will respect them and want to see them respected in the development and control of our environment. I should like to appeal to the Minister of State to reconsider the objections by his Department. The Government, who claim to be considerate and progressive although they are not showing much signs of that on the field, have time to reconsider their objections. I do not consider them to be well-founded after giving them some consideration. The Government should reconsider court decisions on private property and the whole question of compensation, being guided in particular by the many judgments of the late Mr. Justice Kenny which were of fundamental importance and showed a tremendous vision and respect for the rights of the common good in our society. They set out to put some limits on the right to compensation which, before that, had no curtailment and because of the imbalance people were in a position to hold the rest of society to ransom.
There are difficulties in balancing the various rights and, unfortunately, powerful companies and private individuals can sometimes steamroll and trample on the rights of minority groups despite the fact that such groups have put time, effort and energy into saving and preserving natural amenities and the environment. On occasion they have preserved cultural aspects of society, most of the time at enormous personal expense. However, when it comes to balancing environmental concerns with economic gain — which is under discussion at present — unfortunately commercial interests and powerful groups, private individuals, companies, co-operative movements or corporations always seem to win mainly because of access to resources and because they can afford to take on long legal actions. Most important, they are able to do this because they are armed with the threat which they can hold over local authorities in relation to extracting compensation when such authorities refuse to grant planning permission. It is a sad reflection on the development of society over the past 50 or 60 years. On many occasions in various localities we have seen our environment spoiled and the absolute disregard for planning values, and long term development plans in the interest of the community because of a misinterpretation and an over-protection of rights of individuals to the loss and diminution of the rights of the common good.
I am disappointed that the Government seem to be reacting negatively to this Bill but I am quite satisfied that this debate, which has attracted a lot of public interest, is the resurgence of giving expression to the demand by the vast majority of people that we redress his imbalance. It was attempted heretofore by virtue of the Kenny Report which, unfortunately, was not brought to conclusion. I appeal to the Government to ensure that progress is made as quickly as possible and I assure them that the Labour Party will be fully supportive when they introduce proposals in the House to redress this imbalance. Let us, once and for all, give the common good its rightful place and the protection it deserves.
I am very glad to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this Private Members' Bill on the preservation of trees and woodlands. The Minister for the Environment has already explained to the House that the Government agree in principle with the objectives of this Bill but that fundamental constitutional problems are raised by a number of sections in the Bill. The Minister also explained that the issue is more than simply a Planning Act amendment. It will be necessary also to consider the Forestry Acts in order that the best possible conbination of legislative and administrative measures can be devised to achieve the objectives in question.
The objects of the Bill are to amend the provisions of the Planning Acts in relation to the preservation of trees and woodlands by providing, first, that no compensation will be payable in respect of a refusal of consent to fell trees comprised in woodlands of special amenity value, special interest etc.; secondly, that planning authority decisions on applications for consent to fell trees be published; thirdly, that an appeal by any interested person will lie to An Bord Pleanála in relation to a decision by a planning authority on an application for consent to fell trees; and fourthly, that a refusal of consent to fell trees by An Bord Pleanála, or a decision by the board to grant felling consent subject to conditions, will not be compensatable if the trees are of special amenity value, special interest, outstanding natural beauty or importance, etc.
My Department have carefully examined the Bill in consultation with the Attorney General and, as the Minister has already pointed out, there are constitutional difficulties with some of its provisions. In addition, the proposals concerning the right of appeal and the publication of notices are unnecessary in that provisions on these lines can be made to apply under existing law.
It appears that the intent, meaning and effect of section 45 of the 1963 Planning Act may not be fully understood and I should like to explain it clearly to the House before reiterating the Government's position. When a planning authority consider it expedient for amenity reasons to secure the preservation of trees, whether in pursuance of a specific objective of the development plan or otherwise, they may make a tree preservation order under section 45. The amenity objective is the essential requirement. For example, a tree preservation order cannot be made in respect of trees solely on grounds of ecological, botanical or other similar interest or value. The amenity aspect must also be present.
The felling of a tree does not constitute development and does not require planning permission in the ordinary way. The purpose of a tree preservation order is to bring such activity within the control exercisable under the Planning Acts so that no tree covered by a tree preservation order may be felled without the consent of the planning authority.
A tree preservation order may apply to an individual tree or trees, a group or groups of trees, or woodlands. It may not apply to shrubs or to hedges although trees within hedges may, of course, be covered. Woodlands are not defined in the legislation, but it may be taken that woodlands in many instances would involve commercial timber production. One would not normally expect planning authorities to become involved in the control of forestry activity and that is why it is exempted development under section 4 of the 1963 Act but subject to regulation under the Forestry Act, 1946. However, there may be special amenity considerations relating to particular woodlands which would justify planning authority intervention by way of a tree preservation order. For example, it may be necessary in some locations, for amenity reasons, to seek postponement of felling, to limit felling or even to prohibit felling at a particular time.
The main provisions in a tree preservation order will prohibit, except with a consent under the order, the cutting down, topping, lopping, or wilful destruction of the tree, trees, groups of trees or woodlands specified in the order, and set out the extent to which the provisions of Part IV of the 1963 Act will apply to applications for consent to fell.
It is important to note that the provisions of Part IV of the 1963 Act can be applied to felling consents in each tree preservation order. If section 26 (5) of the Act, as amended, is included in the provisions applied, there will be a right of appeal against the decision of the planning authority. This right of appeal is fundamental to the whole planning control system and my Department have recommended that it should be provided for in every tree preservation order. That is why, as the Minister has already explained, the model tree preservation order sent by my Department to local authorities includes the appropriate appeal provisions.
This model order also makes provision for applicants for consent to publish notice of intent in accordance with the normal planning permission practice and for the notification of a decision to any third party who has made representations about a particular application. I would, therefore, reiterate that the procedural provisions in sections 3 and 4 of the Bill are unnecessary. I believe that planning authorities should amend existing tree preservation orders if the appeals provisions are not incorporated, and I welcome the Minister's commitment to remind authorities of this.
The provisions relating to liability for compensation in the case of tree preservation orders are set out in section 45 (2) of the 1963 Act. In summary, the position is that refusal of a consent to fell, or the issue of a consent with conditions, can give rise to a claim for compensation, where it can be established that damage has been suffered as a consequence. However, there are two exceptions. First, if an order made in respect of a tree, trees or group of trees expressly declares that all the trees covered by the order are of special amenity value or of special interest, no compensation is payble in respect of refusal of a consent. This does not apply in relation to trees which form part of a woodland. Secondly, where an order covers woodland trees and the planning authority wish to impose a replanting condition as an essential requirement in the interest of the amenity, the order may make a declaration to that effect and no compensation is then payable in relation to that condition.
Clearly, therefore, the law already provides for non-payment of compensation in certain cases. The question is, however, whether these provisions, together with the other requirements under the Forestry Acts etc., are sufficient to preserve trees in the way we would like and, if not, whether a way can be found of extending and amending them within the constraints imposed by the Constitution.
The Minister for the Environment has already detailed the factual situation regarding Wicklow County Council's handling of recent applications for consent to fell trees at Coolattin, County Wicklow. I fully appreciate that there were difficulties for the council in dealing with these applications and it is clear that the council were anxious to do what they could to secure the preservation of Tomnafinnogue Wood. The making of a special amenity area order for the wood is proof of this. Nobody in the House could feel happy about the destruction of our woodlands, especially where there is not an adequate programme of replanting. This results not only in a loss of amenity but also in an economic loss to the nation, a loss which cannot be made good for a very long time.
The Minister of State at the Department of Energy, my colleague Deputy Smith, who is responsible for forestry matters, is to be congratulated on his quick and decisive action in making a prohibition order to prevent more tree felling at Coolattin. The Minister of State has shown his personal commitment by visiting the area himself and arranging for his officials to carry out a comprehensive inspection of the woods in which trees have already been felled. As the Minister of State explained in the House, the inspection revealed that the mortality rate of new trees was unacceptably high and this was a factor in his decision to prohibit further felling.
I appreciate that there may be further stages in the procedure under the Forestry Acts and I do not want to comment on the possible outcome. However, I am confident that the Government will do all in their power to secure the preservation of the oakwoods in Tomnafinnogue. The Taoiseach himself has already assured the House of that.
On a more long term basis, there are a variety of other issues involved. The Minister of State at the Department of Energy said that his Department will gradually increase the percentage of broadleaf species planted each year and this is very welcome. I too would like to see a national strategy being developed in relation to broadleaved species. Anybody who visits the countryside will notice the difference in the landscape where such trees are present. They add tremendous colour and character, apart from their benefits in terms of shelter and wildlife. It is sad to think that only about 1 per cent of the country is covered by broadleaved trees and we must do all we can to protect this part of our heritage. We take a strong line of action when national monuments are threatened. We must respond in the same way when other elements of our heritage are also at risk.
The issues raised by this Bill revolve around the preservation of our national heritage on the one hand and, on the other, the personal rights and guarantees which our Constitution enshrines. We have the Attorney General's advice that this Bill would not withstand a challenge on constitutional grounds. So, we must think again about the way we tackle this issue. I should say that Deputy McDowell is being a bit unfair when he alleges that unduly restrictive advice has been given by the Attorney General to successive Governments as to the import of the constitutional provisions on private property. He may rest assured that the Attorney General is fully aware of case law in this area. In recent years, the courts may appear to have taken a less restrictive view of these Articles of the Constitution but successive Attorneys General and their staff take full account of all judgments, especially those of the Supreme Court.
Deputies are, of course, entitled to express their views on how the Constitution may or should be interpreted. However, when it comes to dealing with specific legislative proposals which raise constitutional issues the Government will have regard to the reasoned and detailed advice of the Attorney General.
I believe that the strategy of linking the compensation aspect of tree preservation to a more general and fundamental review of the compensation provisions of the Planning Acts as a whole is the correct strategy, given the constitutional complexities involved and the problems and questions arising. My Department are carrying out a review of all the issues involved and this will be completed as soon as possible. The objective will be to bring forward a package of proposals which will strengthen the position of the planning authorities generally. I would like to assure the House that the position of the planning authorities in dealing with applications for tree felling consents will receive particular attention.
I have already pointed to the need to consider both the Planning Acts and the Forestry Acts together. I welcome the proposal to establish a special working group to consider how best responsibility for the protection and preservation of woodlands can be discharged and how the functions involved can best be allocated as between the local planning authorities and the State. I hope that the working group will be able to come up with sensible and practical recommendations and that their deliberations can be completed in a matter of months.
Let me reiterate that I, too, would be pleased if it were possible for me to support this Bill. However, some of the provisions of the Bill are in the Government's view, unconstitutional and I must therefore oppose the motion for a Second Reading. The Government will not allow the broadleaved woodlands of Ireland to be indiscriminately destroyed because of any weakness in the current legislative or administrative process. Recent developments have brought the matter to a head. The particular situation in relation to Tomnafinnoge Wood is being dealt with by the Government. This Bill does not offer a practical or workable response to that problem. Neither is it the best way to proceed on the general problem. The Government's approach of linking the development, extension and proper management of broadleaf woodland with the needs of amenity protection and preservation is, I believe, the best approach in the long run. New legislation may be needed but any proposals for legislative changes will require careful drafting and scrutiny so that they will accord with the relevant Articles of the Constitution.
I appreciate the genuine concern expressed here in the House on this issue but I believe that the best way forward is to leave it to the Government to take effective action. The Government will bring forward workable proposals for legislation, together with whatever other changes are needed to improve the situation as quickly as possible.
I have been many years now in this House and I have seen successive Governments bringing in legislation on many matters. Some legislation thought by some Members of the House to be unconstitutional proved to be so. Rightly or wrongly, that was the ruling of the courts and we always respect the ruling of the courts; I would not dare to interfere with that. We have a duty as a Government in that whatever legislation we bring in must have the approval of the Attorney General. It must stand up in law. I do not believe in bringing in legislation that will not stand up in the courts because of bad advice. I must accept the advice of the Attorney General on this.
Deputy Higgins when speaking last week said, in so many words, if I took him up correctly and I believe I did, that we should bring this legislation in and let the courts decide afterwards. That is not my way of doing things.
No, Deputy Higgins did not say that. That is unfair.
I said that the Legislature must make the presumption of constitutionality.
But the legislation must stand up legally, also. So far as the Government and I are concerned that is the way it will be. When the Attorney General advises one on legislation, one must take his views into account.
He is not always right.
If one does not take his views into account, one could be accused later of putting a great deal of expense on the taxpayer for not putting through good legislative proposals. That is my view regarding the legislation that we bring before the House. I want to assure all the Members of the House that as soon as it is possible to do so, we will bring a Bill before the House and I have no doubt that this will stand up constitutionally. There is no other way forward.
When will the Minister bring in this Bill?
All going well, I hope in the autumn.
Good.
Deputy Kavanagh may not like to hear what I am about to say now, but he was for a while in the Department and it was late in the day that he got hot and bothered. When the mud came along it was at his door.
That is not fair.
He is trying now to look for a cop-out. That is the situation. If he tries to get cheap publicity at the end of the day, he is on a sticky wicket.
It is not the end of my day.
He has got himself caught in the web. He was badly advised. There were some legal people who should have advised him. Nevertheless, he was there in the Department that I am in now. He knew about that and he is living in the county about which he is talking and he failed to do anything about it. The truth hurts now. That is the situation.
That is not the truth.
I shall be very factual. Deputy Kavanagh and his Government were in office and he did nothing about it but late in the day he is getting all hot and bothered.
I was the only Member of this House to do anything about it before 1987.
Getting back to the Bill, we will take all possible steps to ensure that the legislation we bring before the House will be good legislation and that it will stand up to the test. All Members of this House would like to see that happen. I have no doubt that they do not want to see flawed legislation.
Will the Minister remove the compensation issue?
We will look into every aspect. When Deputy Kavanagh was in office he failed to move on the matter.
I did move.
It was in his own county.
I did not see any activity among the Opposition when the Minister was there.
We hope very shortly, in the autumn, to be able to bring in good sound legislative proposals.
I hope the trees will still be there.
There are no other Deputies offering. May I take it that the Second Reading of this Bill is concluded and may I put the question?
I feel I have the right to reply.
The debate has to be adjourned shortly at 8.30 p.m.
I wish to have the right to reply to some of the nonsense I have heard from the Government benches.
All the nonsense is at your own door.
Debate adjourned.