Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Leas-Chathaoirleach to his new role and look forward to working with him this term. I also welcome my colleague the Minister of State, Senator Hackett, and thank her for bringing the Bill to the House. It is a really important occasion. As the leader of the Green Party in this House, it is important that I speak to the Bill. Most Senators will know me at this stage and know I have absolutely no problem standing in the Chamber and criticising the Government. I did it last Friday and they all welcomed my contribution, and I would have no problem doing that today too. I would have no problem saying I do not agree with the Bill but, fundamentally, I do. I take the point that we could have included felling only, but we are talking about afforestation, about the second lowest tree cover in Europe and, as Senator Murphy noted, about a 35% reduction in our plantation compared with this time last year.It is, therefore, not just about felling.

It would be great if we could just walk in here with a national forestry programme and have everyone sign on the dotted line but, as both a Senator and a member of the Green Party, I do not believe that is the way to go. If one really wants to develop a national forestry programme, one needs stakeholder engagement over a longer period. We are here because of a lack of political will across the Houses in respect of forestry and land use. That is why we find ourselves in this position. I just do not buy the argument that we are not in an emergency. Two things have to come together. We need to bring people with us if we are truly going to transform this country. From what I have heard from everybody, it is clear that we do want to transform the country and to have biodiversity. Those who work in industry also have families and children and I believe they also buy into the idea of avoiding the monocultural tree cover we have seen up to this point.

We are not fast-tracking appeals but even if we are to continue with this Bill and speed up the appeals process, does that mean that all of these appeals will suddenly fail? It absolutely does not. It does not make sense to say that, just because appeals are processed more quickly, they will all fail and that nobody's point of view will be taken on board. It does not mean that. It means that the three-year backlog will be reduced. There were 14 appeals in 2017 and 402 so far this year. Something has to give. There has to be some level of practicality.

One of my colleagues here spent nine of his ten minutes talking about something which did not even substantially relate to the Bill. He was criticising the fact that Green Party members had made submissions. I am really delighted they did. I spoke to members and asked them to ensure they put in submissions. Given that there were nearly 9,000 submissions, the argument that this was not proper stakeholder engagement is defunct. As I have said, I am delighted that these people made submissions. I hope these have contributed to the changes to the legislation. I welcome the change made as regards the relevant person.

If we are talking about environmental justice, we have to look at the jobs affected. If we lose those jobs, how are we then going to get a new forestry programme up and running? We all engaged with that stakeholder engagement but where will the people to work in the industry be? They will be gone because we did not act. This is the moment for us to act. There may be fees but fees are charged across the board in respect of planning, as I believe they should be. I also believe, however, that it is the appellants themselves who lose out by sitting in an appeals process for two and a half years. It is to all of our benefit. For jobs, our countryside, our own well-being and those making appeals, we should all get on board with this. The Bill takes on board the very real concerns I have heard from my own constituents and deals with them.

Fundamentally, what we need is a new forestry programme. That is committed to in the programme for Government. I take great issue with some of the patronising comments made here which suggested that Green Party members have been wheeled out to push through legislation. I am sorry but I happen to know the background of those involved and we are fundamentally behind this Bill because it is the right thing to do for the planet and for the environment. That is why we are presenting it.