It is an extraordinary act of generosity by Laura Brennan and others who have been affected by failures in our cervical cancer screening processes to have nonetheless lent their efforts and voices to championing other public health vaccination initiatives in the State. That act has saved lives and, I hope, will continue to do so. I commend Senator Norris on this legislation. It has moved on since the debate on the motion. I highlighted some issues at the time. While I agreed with the motion, I had concerns. I raise…

I join in commending Emma DeSouza and her husband, following on from what Senator Ó Donnghaile stated, and urge that we would look at how we can practically support them for the great service they have done in respect of citizens' rights. I also request that we might have a debate on the budget prior to it rather than simply afterwards, as I am sure many across this House of all parties have a useful input to make before the process as well as wishing to respond to it. However, the issue I really want to raise toda…

I thank the Deputy Leader for her remarks and hope we can work on these issues into the future. The amendment is being pressed.

I am happy to withdraw amendment No. 2 in favour of amendment No. 1 tabled by Senators Norris and Craughwell because it more clearly achieves the same goal, which is ensuring that the information given to the Minister is made available to the public. It might be useful that when the Minister of State indicates her position on amendment No. 1 she also indicates what the mechanisms of response will be to the report. For example, what will happen if we find that a very large or anomalous number of licences are issued …

No Senator made such a comment in the House.

In light of the acceptance of amendment No. 1, I will withdraw amendment No. 2.

Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, which address a similar theme, have been ruled out of order, but much of what they sought is covered by amendments Nos. 3 and 5. I am glad the Minister of State accepted amendment No. 1. I hope that, throughout the debate, she will be able to accept other amendments that progress the Bill. The amendments tabled on this section are such amendments. Members spoke about being serious about afforestation. It would be disingenuous to suggest that there are those of us who are in favour forestati…

It is extremely relevant. One of the expertises sought in this group of amendments is expertise in environmental legislation. Both European and national courts have found that Ireland was not compatible in its licensing processes. That was admitted in the Oireachtas by the former Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Calleary. He said that the EU had required Ireland to put new, appropriate assessment procedures in place for forestry licensing. In July this year the Minister said that Ireland had be…

I accept the ruling on amendments Nos. 6 and 7. I am curious about amendment No. 8. Why is this amendment in conflict with the principles of the Bill? This amendment states that this Bill would be in force for 12 months. We have heard that this Bill has been introduced in the context of there being an emergency that needs to be addressed. My amendment would simply put a sunset clause on the provisions. I would think that this amendment is very much in line with the Bill, the subject of which is the operation of the…

Excuse me, but the principle of the Bill is the issue as just described by An Cathaoirleach, which is one of timing and of a current backlog. My amendment refers to a period of 12 months. It sets out, as my opinion, what should be the period of time in which to address that backlog and, with respect, is clearly within the subject matter of the Bill. It is not simply a matter of opinion. It is a matter of subject matter and I would argue that the subject matter in this case is appropriate.

I do not believe that is the case.

Amendments Nos. 11 to 18, inclusive, are being taken together. All of them relate to timing. With regard to access to justice and people's rights, under the Aarhus Convention and other instruments, it is important that nothing effectively obstruct participation in an appeals process. The proposal of 60 days is reasonable. Forty-two days at least goes beyond a single month in terms of applications, which is good. The question of notification, which is covered in amendments Nos. 14 and 13, is important. A decision ma…

I wish to clarify something with the Minister of State. I asked her a very specific question. Senator Casey suggested the Minister of State would have the capacity to extend the period from 28 days in certain circumstances, and it was pointed out that for planning, the period was extended. As such I would like to check this because as I read the Bill, the Minister of State is precluded from setting another period longer than 28 days. Is it the case that she would not be able to extend the period from 28 days at her…

I wanted to ask if the Minister of State could clarify that. I thank Senator Casey, however.

A number of these amendments would certainly allow the Minister to have that discretion, whereas the Bill currently says the period shall not be more than 28 days, which may in fact narrow the Minister of State's discretionary powers. I suggest amendment No. 16, amendment No. 18 or any one of these amendments that the Minster of State might accept would deal with that concern. It would still allow the Minister to prescribe such times as he or she may wish.

I move amendment No. 13: In page 4, lines 38 and 39, to delete “beginning on the date of the decision” and substitute “from the notification of the decision”. It is at the discretion of the Cathaoirleach to determine if the House has, in fact, accepted an amendment. It is the prerogative and right of Government, if it disagrees, to call a vote. It is not necessarily on the Opposition to call votes. If the Government may lose a vote, it can call a vote and change the record in that sense. Perhaps let us not over-ext…

I move amendment No. 17: In page 5, to delete lines 1 to 6 and substitute the following: “(b) The measures in paragraph (a) may not take effect before the completion of an online portal referenced in section 14E(1)(l). (c) The Minister may, having regard to the public interest and fairness of procedures, prescribe a period which is longer than the period specified in paragraph (a), in order to ensure wide access to the appeal mechanism of the Forestry Appeals Committee, and in light of the cumulative effect of deci…

I move amendment No. 18: In page 5, lines 1 to 6, to delete all words from and including “in” in line 1 down to and including “(a).” in line 6 and substitute the following: “, prescribe a period which shall not be less than 28 days to be a period longer than referred to in paragraph (a), within which an appeal may be brought under that paragraph (a).”.

I will be brief. I just want to add to the concerns expressed. There is a need for recourse, and that is why we all responded regarding the references to the High Court. There are concerns, however, about the deletion of those sections and that is why there are attempts to copper-fasten those in the Bill. In addition, from engagement with the Department of the Minister of State, when I asked about duplication regarding ministerial regulations with the statutory instrument put forward in 2017 concerning judicial rev…

What is the rationale for this? When the Agricultural Appeals Bill was being drafted, it was felt that it was appropriate to reference other legal and judicial remedies. Judicial review was also referenced when the statutory instrument was being drafted in 2017. What is the rationale in breaking with that by not referencing those processes and legal remedies in this legislation? It is a change. It is not for us to suggest there is a concern, but a change must be justified. Why is that change in policy being put for…