Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important legislation relating to the forestry appeals process. I share the disappointment of my colleague, Senator Boyhan, at the rushed nature of this Bill. The Minister of State opened a public consultation process on a bank holiday weekend over the summer holiday period. The quality of the consultation was obviously going to suffer and lo and behold, it did. Senator Boyhan pointed out that we did not get a digest of the submissions and were not told who had made submissions, but we were told this morning that 81% of the submissions were in favour of the Bill. However, 99% of those who were in favour did not actually address the substance of the Bill. It appears that even the industry lobbyists did not have an opportunity in that timeframe to address the substance of this Bill, or perhaps they helped to write it. We then had a situation where we were informed on Friday that the Bill would come before the Seanad on Wednesday but we did not receive the draft Bill until 5.30 p.m. on Tuesday, with a deadline of 6 p.m. today for amendments. With all due respect to the Minister of State, this is no way to do business in a democratic institution.

Nobody wants to see anyone lose his or her job. Sinn Féin is fully aware of the extremely large backlog of appeals and the impact it is having on the supply of timber in this country. The system is well and truly broken and the Minister of State knows this. She inherited this mess and cannot be blamed for the situation in which we find ourselves. We have heard members of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael pontificating but they did nothing to address the situation under their confidence and supply arrangement. I know from previous statements the Minister of State made that she is aware of the systemic problems and that the number of appeals is actually the outworking of a system that is broken.

The current forestry system is failing communities, farmers and sawmill workers. I sincerely hope that when it comes to developing the new forestry programme in 2021, we will have a proper root-and-branch reform of the whole system. We need a licensing system that is robust, environmental law and Aarhus Convention compliant, expedient and that will provide certainty for all stakeholders involved. What everybody wants is certainty and a system that will actually work to screen out the bad applications, thus reducing the need for appeals in the first place. Again, that is something we all want. If that is what the Minister of State intends to do in the future programme for forestry, then Sinn Féin will not be found wanting in working constructively with her in developing such a programme. However, we are not discussing a future forestry programme today. We are discussing this Bill and I will now address the elements of the legislation about which I am deeply concerned.

First and foremost, I ask the Minister of State for legal clarification. SI No. 191/2017 of the transposition of the environmental impact assessment directive in relation to forestry states, "The High Court shall be the court of law for the purpose of Article 11 of the EIA Directive". Yet, on notification of the granting of the licence under the Forestry Act 2014, anyone who made an observation is actually directed to the forestry appeals committee. Where is the legal basis for having these two contradictory messages? I ask the Minister of State to clarify that contradiction and to provide assurances that this Bill will not be challenged in the courts on foot of it.

For the past number of weeks we have heard from the Department that this draft Bill is about bringing the forestry appeals process into line with the planning process. We have heard that argument again today.If that were, in fact, the case, then that would be real progress, but it is not. The forestry appeals process is nothing like the planning process, and for the Department to say that repeatedly is disingenuous. The planning process, while not perfect, has a highly sophisticated and integrated framework. It stems from a national planning framework to regional planning guidelines to county development plans to local area plans. Appeals taken to An Bord Pleanála are generally appeals against decisions made by a local authority. There is a separation of power between the local authority which took the decision and the panel that will adjudicate on the appeal.

With the forestry appeals committee, however, we have a situation whereby we have a Minister, who, by the nature of her role, is responsible for promoting forestry. That is fine. She is also responsible for licensing the forestry, which is okay. Then we have a situation where the Minister is responsible for appointing those who will sit on the appeals committee. With An Bord Pleanála, stakeholders and expert groups get to nominate candidates for the expert panels, while in this Bill, the Minister can appoint directly to the forestry appeals committee. This is not good oversight, in anyone's eyes. Independence, and the perception of independence, are crucial for confidence in legislation.

An Bord Pleanála also has reams of legislation which it must take into account when making a decision on an appeal. The forestry appeals committee is prescribed to make decisions in the draft Bill "as it considers appropriate".

Then we come to the matter of fees. Here, my colleague is absolutely correct. Nothing was done to introduce fees in the past, but now a Green Party Minister is being sent out to do the batting. The Aarhus Convention states that access to justice should not be prohibitively expensive. The Minister already has the powers to introduce fees, but those fees are subject to the scrutiny of the Oireachtas. This draft Bill removes that scrutiny from the Oireachtas and gives the Minister the power to introduce the fees. It does not outline what the fees will be, it just tells us that they will be in compliance with the Aarhus Convention. However, if we are again to take the Department's previous statements that it is to align with the planning process, then we are probably talking about a figure of around €220.

The rub is that forestry licences are not like planning applications. There are afforestation licences, road licences, felling licences and aerial spraying licences, all for the same area. If one happens to be a concerned resident or a community, then there may be multiple appeals to be lodged, which could quickly escalate into thousands of euro for a community or resident, which, and I am sure the Minister will agree, would not be in compliance with the Aarhus Convention.

The 28 days to appeal a decision is again supposed to bring it in line with the planning process. However, very detailed submissions are made with a planning application. The current application process for forestry licensing is not as comprehensive. Therefore, in order for an appellant to gain access to all the documentation he or she requires under the access to the information on the environment, AIE, that alone could take 28 days, and his or her appeal will not be accepted unless he or she includes all of the documentation. What is even more concerning is that this draft Bill allows for the Minister to have the power to reduce the timeframe to 14 days, so one could be on holiday and come back to find that the opportunity to appeal had been missed.

These are the concerns I have with this draft Bill, but I am not here just to obstruct. I, and my party, want to be as constructive as possible because we genuinely want to help. We do not want to see anybody lose their jobs in the saw mills. The Minister told us it is an emergency and we need to fast-track the appeals process. We heard the same in relation to the strategic housing development legislation. Emergency legislation was rushed through and we were told that it would help to address the housing crisis and speed up the delivery of houses because nobody wanted to see people continuing to be homeless. Yet, we have not seen the promised increase in housing supply, but we have been left with very poor legislation.

Therefore, I believe that this emergency legislation, if it is to pass, should be subject to a review, and continued oversight by the Oireachtas. A new forestry programme is promised, and that presents the opportunity to address the systemic flaws and for the Minister to erase the legacy of the previous Governments.A new forestry programme is promised and this is the opportunity the Minister of State has to address the systemic flaws and to get rid of the legacy of previous governments. This is the Minister of State's opportunity to design a fit-for-purpose, streamlined system that everyone can work with.

I will bring forward amendments to address some of the problematic areas in the Bill such as fees, excessive ministerial powers and the length of time in which to appeal. Our amendments will be pragmatic. Sinn Féin asks the Minister of State to give us the commitment, to work with us, to listen to our concerns, and to give consideration to the constructive amendments we bring forward. Every Member in this House wants to see solutions to the current situation. I appeal to the Minister of State to not do what her other colleagues, Ministers in government, have done to date by simply objecting to every amendment brought by this side of the House. I ask the Minister of State to work with us, let us protect the jobs and the environment, and let us get this right once and for all.