Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh na finnéithe go léir. I thank Mr. O'Brien for that and thank Mr. McAuley for his opening statement. They will not find much argument in this room that forestry policy is a mess in this State. We have had several conversations about it. It takes a special type of incompetence of the highest order to have a policy that pleases absolutely nobody. From the industry to the communities, to the farmers and to environmentalists, everybody - apart from the Department and the new Ministers who one would hope would come in with a fresh pair of eyes - is in agreement that our forestry policy is a complete mess. I have listened to a number of Dáil debates in which the Minister of State with responsibility, Senator Hackett, has essentially reiterated and regurgitated what we had been hearing from the Department over the past couple of years and it has been incredibly disappointing. I wanted to premise my first question with that. We accept that the system is a mess and we accept that the primary responsibility for that lies in the Department.

My question is whether the forestry industry accepts any responsibility for the mess that we are in. We are at this point because of the delays with felling licences. If we go back to the start, the root of all of these problems, to use a forestry term, lies in the fact that no plans were put in place when the trees were planted in the first place. We have had several decades of opportunities to get these matters right and we have not had that.

My second question relates to the point made by Mr. McAuley with regard to the industry's willingness to find ways to diversify the forest estate. He said:

Already, over 30% of the trees we plant are broadleaf species. We want to increase the creation of native woodland.

A new forestry policy is due next year, we are told. What percentage would Mr. McAuley put on it? What percentage should be broadleaf? It would be helpful if we could reach a consensus on what the target for that should be.

Mr. McAuley made an interesting point that the Government can take a lead by enabling more timber housing and construction to take place. I am sure many people who would not consider building their homes with anything other than concrete would be surprised to learn of the Norwegian example Mr. McAuley cited of an 18-storey building made from wood. There has to be scope there. We would look forward to those type of developments taking place in Ireland built with wood produced in Ireland. That would be the absolute panacea. In advance of the new forestry policy that we are discussing, what regulations or legislation should be incorporated into that policy to facilitate and encourage those type of developments?

Mr. McAuley mentioned the carbon sink. I am familiar with his figures. I am also aware that others who contact us would argue with those figures but let us assume that they are correct and that they are not in dispute. What measures can be put in place to ensure that forestry plays an even more valuable role in terms of building a carbon sink?

Finally, in relation to the backlog of licences, this committee, the Dáil and the Seanad were misled, when we were dealing with the amendment to the Forestry (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2020, by two Ministers, and by the officials in terms of the briefings that they provided us.

Certainly, the inference I took was that the delay was as a result of the number of appeals. The number of appeals has had a major impact, of that there is no question, and that is why there was almost unanimous support in both Houses for the legislation. It appears the Department is largely responsible, which is a very serious issue. I know this has been touched on. I would ask Forest Industries Ireland whether further legislative change is required to the Forestry Act to address the deficiencies we have learned of, or whether it is a matter of resourcing and changes in regulations.