Regina Doherty (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witness for the body work he has done. He did not have to do it and I know that he genuinely cares about this issue and our rural future. In a way I feel like I am going to shoot the messenger so I ask that the witness not take this personally. We received the report a number of weeks ago. Unfortunately, on that day, the Minister relied very heavily on the questionnaire that was given to 100 people by Mr. Paddy Moloney and the fact that very few people actually responded to that questionnaire. It was cited that the industry did not co-operate. The witness's presentation talked about in-depth interviews that were held with Growing Media Ireland, Kildare Growers, the mushroom industry representatives and Bórd na Mona. It was a long list of people who co-operated. I would suggest that the questionnaire was flawed in some ways. Many of the questions on it did not relate to most of the people it was sent to. As a result, they did not see the need to reply to it. The reason I say this is that it was used at length here to illustrate the reasons we are frustrated as a Government that we cannot move forward on this issue. It did a real disservice to the work of the witness and to the industry. The industry is in crisis and we are trying to find solutions.

People I have engaged with tell me that the quality of the peat at Rochfortbridge is not good enough to be either classified as mined or milled. Therefore, it does not necessarily come to us as a recommendation. As the witness suggested, this was only an example. Somewhere else could produce better quality. I will focus on recommendation 1. I have a site that could be construed as ready for a pilot project tomorrow. In my opinion, as a Government Senator and the Leader of the Seanad, the three parties represented have done everything in the last number of years to delay and object to clearly needs to be done. The planning process needs to be changed. It needs to be simplified. The witness referred to confusion among the landowners. It is far more than confusion. I think it is frustration.

In the pilot project suggestion and recommendation - as I said, I have a site and a landowner ready to go in the morning - are we suggesting that it has to be subject to the current planning laws, EIA, and licences?. I know the witness's intentions are good but we will be here in four years' time and we will not have taken one shovel of mined or milled peat from the ground. We are talking about an industry in crisis. The report took ten months but in the previous two years we have had other reports. All of them recommended that we need to change the two step process and bring forward primary legislation. That is the only way we are going to clear the frustrating paths that our landowners have to go through. This will enable them to provide this industry that is on its knees and crying for help the raw material that is needed.

Is the pilot project subject to all of the conditions that currently exist or is the witness suggesting to Government, as I am told he has said in private, that we need to change the planning laws? We recognise that they will be challenged. Based on the previous judgment from the High Court, the criticism was that what we tried to do it by a statutory instrument when what was needed was to do it by primary legislation. Can that be a recommendation and why is it not?