Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Senator Pippa Hackett):

I thank the Deputies for their contributions. I welcome that there has been a healthy engagement with the Bill by the Members of the House. I would reiterate that the purpose of amending the existing legislation is to improve the functioning of the forestry appeals system, a system put in place to facilitate those who wish to make an appeal, that is, to appeal the decision of a Minister in regard to the issuing of a forestry licence. I believe the proposals in the Bill will provide people with a full and open opportunity to make their views known on forestry projects to an independent and adequately resourced forestry appeals committee. This will mean timely decisions on such appeals and a fair and just response to applicants and interested third parties alike.

I note the support I have received in the House for the Bill and I thank those Deputies who have spoken to that. The concerns of the sector and those who work in it are very real, and this resonates throughout the country. I appreciate there are concerns about the Bill and I thank those who have engaged in this regard also. On balance, I am of the view that, taking into account the public consultation exercise and having taken on board certain amendments last week in the Seanad, I have presented a Bill which reflects the majority support expressed but has also addressed the main reservations put forward.

I will address some of the individual points raised by Deputies. I welcome the support of my colleague, Deputy Leddin, and agree with his assertion that we need to work with farmers in any future forestry model. My colleague, Deputy Duffy, gave an eloquent account of forestry in Ireland, the benefits of forestry and its uses in the construction sector. That "wood first" policy should certainly be rolled out across the country.

Deputies Aindrias Moynihan and MacSharry highlighted the need for a fairer and more balanced approach to where we plant trees across the whole country, and this was echoed by other Deputies. I note also the support from the Independent groups. Deputy Harkin effectively highlighted the concerns about forestry in her constituency, of which I am very aware, and it is something we need to address moving forward.

I welcome Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan's highlighting of the progressive measures within the programme for Government, as well as the jobs under threat in his constituency. In addition, his highlighting of the mental health issue raises an important aspect.

There were specific comments and questions. Deputy Sherlock yesterday asked specific questions about the regulations, and this was echoed by Deputies Carey, Michael Healy-Rae and others. It is my intention to introduce the statutory instruments immediately on enactment of the Bill and we are working on that now. Not all of the regulations listed in section 14E are needed to give effect to the Bill.

Concerns were raised by many Deputies, including Deputy Fitzmaurice and others, about the backlog in licensing, which in essence is a separate issue to that dealt with in the Bill. This is something my Department has been addressing in the past 12 months or so, which is before my time. It has overhauled the assessment process to deal with this, revised the procedure, increased resources, developed training and guidance, and strengthened to a great extent its ecological team, which was where a lot of the delay in this process lay. The Department now has 14 ecologists whereas, this time last year, it had just one, so that is a significant shift in staff in that area.

Deputies Connolly and Fitzmaurice highlighted the Mackinnon report. The Government has committed to appointing an independent chair to oversee the implementation of that report. I can assure Deputy Connolly that I have no one whispering in my ear. I am well able to make my own decisions and I can interpret the Bill. I am aware of the necessity to get this Bill enacted as soon as possible.

I know there were concerns about the timing of the Bill and the speed at which it is being pushed through the Oireachtas procedure, and I share that concern. It is not ideal and it is not a situation I am particularly comfortable with.

It is, unfortunately, reflective of the grave circumstances in this sector and of the real risk to many thousands of jobs based in rural areas. Some may suspect that the industry is calling our bluff and I have seen people call for me to withdraw the Bill entirely but that is not something on which I am willing to gamble. I am not willing to gamble with those jobs. I have been on the phone to many distressed farmers and I have heard the concerns of unions. Farmers have contacted me who are watching diseased trees dying in their plantations and who are unable to do anything about it. Other farmers contact me to ask why their applications to plant native woodland are not going through, which is because of the delays in the process. It is absolutely imperative that the Bill be supported and I believe that support is there. The announcement of the public consultation at the end of July brought about exponential growth in the number of appeals and put more pressure on the system.

Some comments were made which do not relate to the Bill but to the wider forestry model. I take most of those on board. It is something at which we will be looking very shortly and into the future. I agree with Deputy Boyd Barrett that there is more scope for employment within the sector. This is again something towards which we need to work, although it is outside the scope of this particular Bill.

Some Deputies raised issues as to the independence and competence of the membership of the forestry appeals committee. These issues were raised yesterday by Deputy Farrell and today by Deputies Cairns and Harkin. I assure the Deputies that the committee operates totally independently of the Department and that it has the required skill set to discharge its functions. The current chairperson has significant expertise, experience and competence in matters relating to planning and planning appeals. We will be extending the membership of the committee, but all members of the committee are required to operate in an independent and impartial manner. The new members of the committee will be selected based on their range of skills and on their competences in environmental legislation, land use, knowledge of the appeals process and so forth. Deputies should rest assured that those on the committee will be competent in the relevant areas. Indeed, the forestry appeals committee can bring in additional expertise if it deems it necessary. It is always open for the committee to do so.

It is welcome to hear that there is overwhelming support for a new model of forestry for Ireland. That is really positive. Everyone in politics and some outside of the Oireachtas will be needed to help us design and shape that model. We will bring on as many as we can. We will bring with us those communities who have felt left behind so far, and we will address the issues relating to climate action and biodiversity. It is a really exciting time. This Bill has been greeted with some contention but it is just one step which is absolutely necessary. Beyond it, we will have the scope to develop what I hope will be a wonderful model of forestry for Ireland. This Bill will strengthen the forestry sector which, as many have outlined, is tremendously important in our society. We will deal with the other challenges very soon afterwards.

There is an issue with fees. The purpose of this legislation is, in part, to align the system with the planning system, in which the charging of modest fees for submissions and appeals is well established. This provision is Aarhus compliant, as is the Bill. Deputy Cairns queried the robustness of the legislative scrutiny of the Bill. This was robustly examined by our legal team and by the Attorney General. We also consulted the Aarhus unit in the office of the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan. We are satisfied, therefore, that the Bill and the modest fees, which I indicated would be in the region of €20 for a submission and €200 for an appeal, are compliant with the Aarhus convention. The fees are not intended to remove people from the process. It is reasonable to recoup some of the costs of the appeals process.

See this speech in context