Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I have some questions. The Minister of State said the Department had not received any submissions to date on all the cases that have been delayed because of SI 293 of 2021. If we do get submissions, is there a plan in place to ensure this will not cause further delay?

Alternatively, are we looking at a scenario like we had with emergency legislation needed for appeals in the recent past?

The prohibition on planting on unenclosed land is a policy introduced by a Government a number of years ago. What is the Minister of State's view on that policy and on a complete or partial lifting of it to allow certain areas to be planted? There is clear scientific evidence that a blanket ban on unenclosed land is not beneficial to the creation of habitats for the hen harrier or other species.

The Minister of State talked about afforestation and we are all in full agreement that the level of afforestation is worryingly low. Senator Lombard said the next generation would ask questions about how we allowed this to happen. Does the Minister of State have plans in place to increase the level of afforestation? Does she have a plan for extending the premiums for between 15 and 20 years to make afforestation more attractive to farmers? What is her view of the percentage of afforestation that should be Sitka spruce? If we are to have a commercial industry going forward, we need Sitka spruce. Does the Minister of State have a set ratio she believes provides the best divide between natural woodland and Sitka spruce? What is the environmental-commercial balance she sees for the industry?

The officials spoke about putting through legislation to provide that thinning and roads would not need a licence. They put environmental reasons forward for not doing so. I do not agree with that assessment. This land was granted a licence for afforestation. It is a natural progression from that to have thinning and roads in place. If we are to get to grips with the licence situation, thinning at least needs to be exempt from the requirement to secure a licence. Whatever we have to do to achieve that in legislation needs to be done urgently.

I welcome the Minister of State's commitment that she will help people in financial trouble because of the lack of licence output in their negotiations with financial institutions. As Deputy Martin Browne and other speakers have said, unfortunately people who have had machines repossessed have come knocking on our doors. Their lifetime's work has virtually gone down the tubes.

I accept the Minister of State has made changes regarding ash dieback, which are welcome, but there is not near enough recognition of the financial hardship and loss that people who owned ash plantations have suffered. This crop was going to be hugely valuable when it reached maturity at 35 or 40 years of age. In many cases, ash was planted on good arable land because it was seen as suitable. We have made a recommendation in this committee that once the land is cleared, these plantation owners should have the choice, given the experience they have had, of replanting their land or putting it back into arable production. They should have that freedom to choose. The least we can do as legislators is to allow those plantation owners to have access again to premiums.

We can argue about how the disease came into the country but one thing that is certain is that it was not the plantation owners' fault the disease came in. Wherever the blame lies, it is not at their door. They have suffered huge losses. I and others have visited plantations in my county and surrounding counties. It galled me to see the disease in those trees. While some of them might have a salvage value for firewood, by the time labour is paid to get the timber out, the owner would be lucky not to be in a minus situation. We owe it to these plantation owners to give serious consideration to allowing them to get access to premiums again. In all other cases, when people are replanting, they have got a significant financial gain from the clear-felling of their crop, as they are entitled to do, but these plantation owners have not got that. They have a salvage operation at best to clear the site and if they replant, it would be natural justice that they be entitled to premiums.

Those are the questions and observations I have and if the Minister of State could address those in the limited time left, I would be grateful.