Why does the text not reference the High Court and judicial review?

Why not include it in the text? The Agricultural Appeals Bill existed when the statutory instrument setting out the forestry appeals committee's initial terms and functions was drawn up in 2017. At that time, even though the forestry appeals committee existed, it was considered appropriate to refer to judicial review processes. As we understand it, the statutory instrument will no longer apply because it has largely been replaced by the measures in this Bill and one does not want duplication. Perhaps that can be cl…

I am happy to speak after the Minister of State has spoken.

As the Minister of State said, these amendments concern the issue of fairness and ensuring there is appropriate participation. I will go briefly through some of the categories of these amendments. Amendment No. 22 concerns the fairness of procedure and the provision of wide access. She has recognised that this should be one of the principles. This emerges from the context, as do several of the amendments to this section, and certainly those on which I am leading, of the very real concern regarding the category of r…

I believe I will be providing a positive service when I ask for clarification. I recognise that there is not an exclusion in the Bill, but is there a point where there is an explicit inclusion per se ? This is not about future legislation but relates specifically to section 14B(2) proposed to be inserted by the Bill. That subsection reads: The Forestry Appeals Committee may make such rules in relation to the conduct of appeals as it considers appropriate and shall publish those rules on a website maintained by or o…

Okay.

I thank the Minister of State.

I move amendment No. 23: In page 5, to delete lines 21 to 23.

I move amendment No. 24: In page 5, line 22, to delete "as it considers appropriate" and substitute "as are appropriate".

I move amendment No. 25: In page 5, line 23, after "Committee." to insert the following: "Any such rules have to be consistent with providing for fairness of procedures and in providing wide access to the review mechanism of the Forestry Appeals Committee.".

I move amendment No. 26: In page 5, line 23, after “Committee.” to insert the following: “Such rules may not set limits to the rights of persons or categories of persons or entities to make an appeal.”.

I move amendment No. 28: In page 5, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following: “(2A) Rules made by the Forestry Appeals Committee under subsection (2) may not include any measures which exclude a person or category of person from making an appeal.”.

I move amendment No. 30: In page 5, line 26, after “appeal.” to insert the following: “Such direction may not set limits to the rights of all persons or categories of persons to make an appeal nor create obstacles to the vindication of those rights.”.

I move amendment No. 31: In page 5, line 26, after “appeal.” to insert the following: “Such direction may not set limits to the rights of all persons or categories of persons to make an appeal.”.

I move amendment No. 32: In page 5, line 30, after “grounds.” to insert the following: “An appellant shall be allowed to furnish additional information to an appeal where the provision of that information has been compromised by delays in the processing of requests made under Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information.”. The Minister of State wondered aloud why, after the category of relevant person had been removed, people stil…

I do not wish to stray to amendment No. 36 unnecessarily. Amendment No. 33 is a simple opportunity to delete those relevant lines. Again, this is not a provision that existed previously. It is an additional requirement being placed on appellants. The Minister of State has the right to remove it and it would be a better Bill if she did so. Amendment No. 32 deals with the same issues of directives. Those are the issues, and I ask the Minister of State to address them. That part refers to the person's rights, but I wi…

I did not interrupt the Senator.

I am sorry, excuse me-----

When persons are referred to in this House they have a right to respond.

I was referred to as one of five Dublin-based Senators. First, I am from Galway. I may be living and working in Dublin now but I am from that area. Nonetheless, I also know that many of those who have spoken to me on this Bill-----