Mr. Patrick Bruton:

The target under the plan is 5,250 licences, not 7,000. That total of 5,250 licences is less than the Department issued in 2019. That is the level of ambition in the plan. Total licence output in 2021 was less than in 2017, 2018 and 2019 but ahead of 2020, which was a complete disaster. The Department pointing out that 2021 was 56% ahead of 2020 is laughable because 2020 was a disaster.

The plan expects to have 3,000 files in the system at the end of 2022. One has to question the metrics and the assumptions that are behind that number, particularly on applications and approvals. They expect to get significantly fewer applications in 2022 than in any of the years 2017 to 2019 and 2021, despite that the volume of timber has increased dramatically. On planned licensing delivery output, they expect to issue 1,040 afforestation licences. They are already failing on that after quarter 1, 2022. On private felling licences, they expect to issue more felling licences in 2022 than in any of the years 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 or 2021. There are already failing in that regard after the end of the quarter 1, 2022.

The Deputy mentioned ash dieback. There are no metrics in the plan on applications to be received or approved during 2022. On native woodland conservation, the plan contains no metrics on applications to be received or approved. There is nothing in it about area fertiliser licences or native woodland improvement approvals. Are all of these assumptions in the plan very convenient to painting a rosy picture as to a reduction in files at year end?

The Department has recently claimed it is 99% on target in terms of the plan. It is nowhere near that in regard to the private sector. Our question is twofold: how could anyone have faith in this plan and how could anyone see any merit in it? We need the targets and metrics in this plan to be reset now to cover the total requirement of the industry for 2022 so that can be delivered on and form a real basis for a licensing plan in 2023.