I would like to thank all Members on the Opposition and Government benches who contributed to this debate and who voiced their concern for the action we have taken and for what will happen if a Bill such as this is not enacted very soon. I could say that the expressions of concern for our environment have the total agreement of the House, but I must express my disappointment that the opportunity this Bill has given to the Dáil to halt the further destruction of the environment, and in particular to achieve the better preservation and protection of trees and woodlands of special recreational or amenity value or of outstanding natural beauty, may not be taken up.
The urgency of introducing this Bill was necessitated by the application received by Wicklow County Council on 26 March 1987 from Bridgefarm Limited, owners of the old Fitzwilliam Estate, Coolattin, County Wicklow. The Bill was presented to the House on 8 April last in good time to prevent the felling and extraction of trees, mainly oak trees, on 66½ hectares on a site known as Tomnafinnogue Wood which was covered by a tree preservation order number 3282/78.
In view of the expressions by the Taoiseach both in and outside this House, we in the Labour Party had reason to hope that the Bill would have been welcomed by the Government and a speedy passage through both House effected. Therefore, with regret we note that this opportunity was rejected by the Government on the grounds that it is, in the view of the Attorney General, unconstitutional under Articles 40.3 and 43, claiming that the legislation which would amend the Planning Acts so as to abolish compensation in the event of a refusal of consent to fell woodlands would be found unconstitutional.
Over the period of the debate I have been accused by members of the Government party that I had ample opportunity to introduce legislation when I was in Government. When I introduced this Bill I expected to hear criticism of that nature. In 1985 as Minister for the Environment I received the same legal advice as the present Minister and accepted it in good faith. However, since then I have received from eminent legal people contrary advice on Articles 40 and 43 of the Constitution which leads me to believe that there are sufficient grounds in case law and in recent opinions to show that the legal opinion given to me in 1985, and now to the present Minister, is not conclusive.
My colleague, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, dealt at length on the aspects of the legal position vis-à-vis the Articles of the Constitution which confirmed my doubts. Other contributors — Deputy McDowell, Deputy Barnes, Deputy Quill and Deputy Spring — added weight to the argument that the Bill would not be repugnant. I only regret that Deputy John Kelly, who has written extensively on the Constitution, did not take the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
I also regret that Deputy Garret FitzGerald, whose concern about tree preservation in Dorney Court is well known, did not take the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Nevertheless, we had the benefit of Deputy Kelly's book on the Irish Constitution which was used by Deputy Higgins to back up his case.
When I introduced this Bill on 27 May I offered it to the Government to take it on board and to make any changes they considered it needed. We were told by the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment that the Government would bring in their own legislation in the autumn session. One can only assume that the Government are adopting a dog-in-the-manger attitude and that if there is a solution on the basis of our Bill then Fianna Fáil will bring in the legislation and no other party will gain any kudos from it. I am afraid that is delaying an urgent matter to the probable detriment of Coolattin. Nevertheless, we will wait and see what the Government Bill will provide as a solution. I am prepared to bet that their Bill will have many similarities to the Bill we have already presented in the vital area of amending the planning acts. We all hope that the Bill, when it is brought before the House, is not too late to preserve Coolattin Woods.
The action of the Minister of State in charge of forestry in issuing a prohibition order against Bridgefarm's application for a felling licence is welcomed by all Members and I believe it will give the Government time to consider their legislation during the summer recess. However, it raises some concern for me arising out of the advice given to me by the Department in the last two years. I was invited by the Coolattin Woods Action Committee in August 1985 to a meeting in Shillelagh — I was Minister for the Environment at the time — and the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry was represented at that meeting by a senior official and a local forester. Clear assurances were given then that the replanting requirements in the consent for the felling of trees at Brow Wood and Drumgall Wood were being strictly monitored and would be so in the future. When Mr. Couchman wrote to me, as Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, later in 1986 I was able to assure him then, on the information I received from my officials, that the monitoring had taken place and was continuing. I was able to assure him that the replanting was being done in accordance with the arrangements and the surveillance that had been carried out by the Department. The same information was given on 4 February to Deputy Hussey who was then Minister for Social Welfare by former Deputy Paddy O'Toole who was then Minister for Tourism, Fisheries and Forestry. I assume that the same officials drafted both letters and advised the Minister of State, Deputy Smith, when he entered this debate on 27 May. In the course of that debate, as reported at column 3094 of the Official Report, he said:
I was in the position to make this decision because during a random visit to that wood in early May it was brought to my notice that the conditions which applied to the earlier licences had not been complied with. On receipt of that information I instructed officials of my Department to carry out an exhaustive and comprehensive inspection of the woods which had been clear felled and recently replanted. My fears were justified as the inspection demonstrated beyond all shadow of doubt, and to my satisfaction, that the mortality rate of the saplings or new plants is of such an order as to make it very easy for me to put a prohibition order on the present notice which is before me. The mortality rate of new plants in the clear felled area is of the order of 30 per cent. In some of the oakwood species it is over 40 per cent but on average in both the conifer and broad leaf species, particularly oakwoods, it is over 30 per cent. An acceptable level of mortality would be between 10 and 15 per cent but a mortality rate in the order of 30 per cent is totally unacceptable. Although I cannot claim to have any technical expertise in this matter I am strongly of the view that if you clear fell, particularly in relation to the replanting of oakwood species, it is very necessary for the young crop to have shelter and be protected from frost and heavy rainfalls. The growing and maturing older trees compete for unwanted vegetation which allows the young trees to develop.
The Minister has a responsibility to me and to former Deputy Paddy O'Toole to explain how he can be given information which is at variance with that given to his two predecessors. I am happy that officials in the Department are well versed with the area but I find it difficult to accept that within a month different advice could be given to at least three Ministers. That concerns me and the Taoiseach, who is present, should be concerned. I look to the Minister to find out who has given the information and whether it was given to us in the hope that it would make us happy.
