Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I do not know whether the Minister of State did it deliberately or inadvertently but this Bill has fed into the narrative about serial objectors. The reckless comments from certain Deputies today in this regard are unacceptable. There is absolutely no evidence presented to us in the Dáil that serial objectors are a problem. The irony is not lost on me that the day the Minister of State published this Bill was the same day the Supreme Court published its judgment in favour of Friends of the Irish Environment and quashing the climate mitigation plan.

I represent Galway West. It is a rural community with the city also. I am completely behind a sustainable industry. The Government commissioned Jim Mackinnon CBE, to review the forestry licence process. He reported back in 2019 and his report has not been mentioned by the Minister in her speech or by a single Deputy here today. Mackinnon said in his report: "If these principles are put into practice, this should go a considerable way to creating a vibrant, confident and sustainable forestry industry which enjoys support, not just across the sector, but from community and environmental groups who can benefit and take pleasure from a more diverse woodland cover in Ireland." I fully support that. This is the expert who was commissioned by the last Government. In addition, we have declared a biodiversity emergency and a climate emergency. Mackinnon, who was commissioned, set out for us the issues, then set out the recommendations and then set out the steps forward, with two steps forward. Time precludes me from going into the details but there is specific onus on the Government to do something, to have a meeting by March 2020, and that the forestry programme implementation group would be the forum in which to push the programme ahead, with a second one.

On the issues raised on the report, none of them had to do with serial objectors. In a week where we have listened to demands from the media, which I agree with, that a report should be based on facts, and when last night we had the most despicable so-called debate between the President of the United States of America and hopefully the future President of the United States of America, then it is difficult that in this instance facts do not appear to come into it. Inadvertently, we are doing the same in this Dáil.

We need a vibrant forestry industry. I am acutely aware of the value of this to rural areas. I am acutely aware that 12,000 jobs are involved and if we were doing it right there should be a lot more.

The Minister, Senator Hackett, came to the House yesterday with her speech and failed to mention Mackinnon. I do not wish to be personal in any way. I appeal to her as Green Party Minister to show leadership and not to get entrapped with the Department, which is really under pressure. I am not saying it is under pressure; the Mackinnon report says it is under pressure. Let us consider what Mackinnon identified as problematic. He said: "Significant hurdles remain if the Irish Government's planting target is to be met [and that the] perceived lack of political priority given to forestry is a major concern." I repeat again there is a lack of political commitment and priority. The report also said that there is an overarching need for a statement on the Government's policy on forestry and that forestry should not be the "sole preserve" of one Department. Of the Department, Mackinnon said: "Low morale has become endemic and more resources, along with improvements to iFORIS, could help restore this". The report recommends additional inspectors and said that inspectors feel isolated and not sufficiently supported, that concerns of many Inspectors over increasing and more complex workload are accepted and that perceived complexities over compliance with the Habitats Directive were consistently raised. It was also noted that there were not enough pre-planning meetings, there were inadequate applications by those putting in an application and on many occasions the applications were not sufficient. The list goes on and on. Mackinnon recommended better consultation, pre-planning meetings and so on.

The Minister then comes to the House with a Bill that feeds into a narrative that objectors are the cause when repeatedly Governments have failed to put in resources to help those in the Department to do the job properly and have failed to have any feedback or to work on feedback to provide sufficient training. The Minister comes to the Dáil with that Bill and reduces public participation in the guise of improving the system. That is completely and utterly false. I have a great difficulty with that in the week that is in it. Tomorrow is plant a tree day. We will tell children and schools of the State to plant a tree. In 120 years we have gone from 2% to 11%. That is some progress is it not: 9% in 120 years.

We have set up a system that is geared to fail and when it fails we do not look at why it fails; we blame people who put in submissions. On what do we base this? There are no figures in the Minister's speech and no figures from any Deputy who spoke here today who referred to serial objectors. I understand the appeals are as low as 1%. There are different types of appeal, which the Minister would know better than I. There are appeals with regard to afforestation, felling or aerial spraying, for example. There has been no breakdown or analysis whatsoever.

At this point I ask the Minister to walk out of her imprisonment in the Department. Let us help the Department to do its job right. I cannot think of any better way to put it than to say the Minister cannot see the forest for the trees in this situation. The Government is blaming the wrong people. I ask that the Minister goes back to the Supreme Court judgment. I welcome that Friends of the Irish Environment had the courage to take the Government to court to get the mitigation plan quashed. Repeatedly the Supreme Court, the High Court and all the other courts have pointed to the importance of the trinity in planning laws: the authority, the developer and the public. Without the public we would have absolutely no declaration of climate change and no recognition of biodiversity. For the Minister to stand here is doubly duplicitous and it is disingenuous to allow the blame fall on objectors. I ask the Minister to correct that in her statement. I ask her to stand up to Deputies who are taking the easy way. I am standing up for my rural area and I believe in a vibrant and sustainable woodland forestry policy.

I ask the Minister to read the Mackinnon report to see what he said in his 21 issues, 26 recommendations and the two steps forward. Only one point in the report relates to introducing fees. It is also disingenuous to say the Bill is aligning with the planning process. Planning has a whole set of laws and an independent appeals board. The Minister is not doing that here.

See this speech in context