Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I can see reason in this amendment but I cannot support it because, while we need certainty with regard to appeals, the amendment completely ignores the facts on the ground. I find it difficult to accept the Government's role in the narrative being portrayed here. I was under some pressure in respect of time earlier on and I would like to take a few minutes to go back on some of the points I was making.

I absolutely believe in having a thriving woodland industry, which we need. We need it for jobs, for sustainable life and development in our rural communities, and to deal with climate change. We have declared a climate emergency and a biodiversity emergency. This should be a positive debate and, if the Government had led, it would have been. I understand some of the comments made by Deputies who describe themselves as "rural" Deputies although, as I have already said, I represent a substantial rural area.

The forestry programme comes to an end this year but there is no sign of a new one. There has been no discussion of the Mackinnon report. Perhaps the Ministers might tell us why that report was commissioned if the Government was going to ignore it. What did that cost? The two steps forward I mentioned earlier related to the Government. One of these asked the Government to publish its views on this report given the urgency of the situation. I acknowledge what Deputies here have said, which is that we do not realise there is an emergency and a crisis. I acknowledge there is a crisis. The Government needs to lead on that and we need to support it if it shows good leadership.

Mr. Mackinnon said, "There is a clear need to establish greater impetus and momentum on woodland creation." He used the term "woodland creation" deliberately. He continued, "The Department should, therefore, aim to publish its views on the Review and how it plans to take forward the findings within 6 weeks of the submission of this report." The Minister of State has not specified whether this was done. Mr. Mackinnon acknowledged that not all actions may be accepted but he wanted the Government to make clear what actions it proposed to take and gave some other target dates. He talked about, "Right Tree/Right Place/Right Management/Right Objectives."

I am really tired of divisive debate and the division between the rural community and city life. I am in the privileged position of representing both and I want to see the rural areas thrive. It is not good to develop our cities out of all proportion. The Ministers cannot, however, come here tonight and wash their hands of their role in this divisive debate. They cannot ignore Mr. Mackinnon's findings and the issues he has clearly set out. I will not use the word "blame" but my analysis of what he has said is that he identifies an absence of leadership by Government. He asks for a clear guideline from the Government.

I will read out some of Mr. Mackinnon's report but I will limit my comments as I am due back in the Chair. He said, "A consistent theme emerging during the Review was the lack of political commitment and priority from the Irish Government to woodland creation." He compared and contrasted it with the situation in Scotland and said, "The forestry sector in Ireland does not exude a similar confidence and optimism although there is clearly an ambition", although there is no backing of that ambition. He identifies, "a failure to tackle the problems with licensing", and also notes that the system is "overburdened with paper".

He went on to say, "The impression gained during the review is that State bodies are not as engaged in helping deliver the afforestation programme as they could and should be". He also stated, "The number of inspectors has remained constant" although he noted the complexity of their work has greatly increased, including the obligations under the habitats directive. He noted how a number of inspectors feel isolated and refers to 14 locations throughout the country where many feel isolated and not sufficiently supported. He further stated, "It was suggested that the inspectorate were too focused on individual site appraisal and had lost sight of the bigger picture in relation to forestry's role", which I understand perfectly, particularly in view of the pressure on them.

At total of 22 issues were raised and recommendations were made, but there has been no reference to them tonight. Instead, we have a divisive debate on people who would go to the trouble of putting in submissions - not objections. We are utterly reliant on them. We passed whistleblower legislation because of the value of the ordinary person in telling us what is wrong. The courts, which are not known for their radical nature, have told us of the vital role of the ordinary person in the planning process and in this process. Yet, tonight we are talking about a multiplicity of objections when there is absolutely no evidence of this. Like Deputy Boyd Barrett, I call on the Minister and the Minister of State to provide the evidence. I am a pragmatic, practical woman. I am willing to look at evidence and change my mind if that is necessary. However, the Minister and Minister of State have not done that. They have disingenuously allowed this type of debate to develop when really we should be having a positive debate on the wonderful asset that is our forestry. We should discuss the question of how, in 120 years, we have gone from 2% to 11%. That is a scandal, not to mention the under-resourcing of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Then, the Government brings in this legislation and we blame the people who have done their utmost to alert us to what is wrong.

I appeal to the Minister and the Minister of State to let sense prevail at some stage in the Dáil - the seat of democracy - in respect of this matter. All these amendments were tabled by us in goodwill. Neither the Minister nor the Minister of State has looked at one of them or taken one on board. One could leave here tonight despondent, except that is a luxury we cannot afford. Having declared an emergency on climate change and biodiversity and given the necessity of this industry to jobs in rural areas, I cannot go out of here despondent. I appeal to Deputies to unite instead of dividing and carry out an analysis of what is needed. In that context, I cannot support the specific amendment, although I fully understand from where the Deputy is coming.

See this speech in context