Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE) | Oireachtas source

I am sharing time with Deputy Boyd Barrett. It is clear from the figures, and from any visible comparison of Ireland with other European countries, that we have a problem with afforestation here. There is a total of 11% in Ireland, versus an EU average of 30%, and very low levels of afforestation at the moment, combined with higher harvesting rates. It is a problem that needs to be addressed but it needs to be done so in the correct way, not with the expansion of Sitka spruce monoculture, which is environmentally damaging, and not by eliminating public participation and a public process of appeals and so on. It needs to be addressed as part of a sustainable plan and as part of a green new deal that involves sustainable jobs and so on.

In my opinion, however, that is not the approach the Government has taken in this case. There are a large number of problems with the Bill, the first of which are the procedural ones. The number of tricks and manoeuvres the Government has used to try to force through the Bill without proper scrutiny is striking. It is reminiscent of the worst old days of overall majority government, ramming through guillotines, avoiding pre-legislative scrutiny and so forth. Every sly move possible has been used. The consultation period started on the Friday of a bank holiday weekend and ran for the summer holidays. The details of the submissions to that consultation are not available. Even the Oireachtas Library and Research Service has stated it has not been given enough time to analyse the submissions. The need for pre-legislative scrutiny was waived and now tonight's debate will be guillotined.

We will, therefore, debate on Second Stage, which is the debate in principle, for another couple of hours and at that point we will have until 9 p.m. to deal with a huge number of amendments. What will happen, for the benefit of people who are not in the Chamber, is that not only will those amendments not be discussed, they also will not be voted on. It is a completely inadequate process and it will be striking to people when they compare it with how proposals for sick pay for workers or proposals for dying with dignity are dealt with by the Government. Those matters can be kicked to touch and tied up in knots for six months but it is another rule in this case.

It is the Green Party that is doing this. It is dirtying its hands with this grubby deal.

What makes it worse is that those involved in campaigning on these issues know that if it had not been participating in this Government, the Green Party would have been on the opposite side of this debate and it would be criticising both the lack of public participation and process around the Bill and the contents of the Bill itself. It has its Cabinet seats and like in Animal Farm, one can look from blueshirt to green and from green to blueshirt but already it is impossible to say which is which.

On the content of the Bill, last year a report for the Fine Gael-led Government complained about an appeals system which allows third parties, at no cost, to challenge the decisions of the Department. It will not surprise people that Fine Gael was giving out about a system that allows ordinary people and community groups to challenge the Department but now we have the Green Party joining in with trying to silence the voices of those environmental groups that it once claimed to support.

The Bill would allow the Minister to impose whatever fees he wants on people who bring appeals to the forestry appeals committee. In the Seanad transcript I read speculation that this could cost people up to €220, which was not refuted by the Minister of State. Some families and communities that are heavily affected by this due to where they live could have many such appeals to make, and they have the right to make many such appeals, meaning they could be charged thousands of euro in order to be able to have their voices heard. The Government's hope is to silence people so that only the wealthy and those with resources can appeal these decisions. The Green Party should be ashamed of itself.

When the Green Party went into Government, some undoubtedly hoped it would mean the Government would take seriously the need to take on the big business polluters and to invest in green jobs. Instead, this week we have a Green Party Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport standing over a massive attack on intercity bus services and now another Green Party Minister of State is rushing through a forestry Bill that is being described as truly shocking by environmental organisations. It is clear how the Green Party is being used as a mudguard and these proposed changes for forestry are one more example of that.

I have a few points to make on amendments that might not be reached at all or if they are reached, unfortunately I will not be here because I have to go to the picket line of the Debenham's workers at The Square in Tallaght where there is an attempt to remove the stock. It is ironic because in justifying this legislation, the Government says it is introducing it to protect jobs but when jobs are actually under attack in the case of Debenhams, the Government has stood idly by.

The Minister should drop the proposal to give himself the power to impose whatever fees he likes. In my opinion, there is no need for such fees whatsoever. If the Government wants to truly support the principle of the Aarhus Convention of promoting public participation, the idea of fees should be completely scrapped and at the very least, the Government should support the various amendments that are proposed to restrict those fees.

I welcome the fact the Government was forced to drop the restriction on who could submit an appeal. It is a testament to the pressure that was brought to bear by various organisations and campaigners in the Environmental Pillar and beyond.

On jobs, there is much spin and bluster seeking to make out that environmentalists are against cutting down trees for timber or are out to make those working for the industry unemployed. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that timber production can be done in an environmentally sustainable way and can be an important part of a socialist green new deal for Ireland. However, if the Government is relying on the for-profit motive and on big corporations to drive that, they will not do so in an environmentally sustainable way. When profits rule, it is inevitable that people's interests and the interests of the planet are put second and communities and biodiversity are sacrificed in the search for profits.

See this speech in context