David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I compliment the Leas-Chathaoirleach on his elevation, which is a most appropriate appointment.

I am astonished that a Green Party Minister of State would introduce legislation of this kind to the House. I recall the Heritage Bill some years ago when I was the only person to object to the introduction of legislation that would threaten many of the most endangered wild bird species. I got no support whatever on the first occasion I raised this and that was very worrying. It is astonishing that this Bill should be rushed through at such breakneck speed. Changes were made last night. It is almost impossible, at least extremely difficult, to table amendments to take account of the changes in the Bill. We did not know what we were dealing with; it was a completely amorphous body and required great scrutiny to get through it.

I objected when charges were introduced in planning. I did not want it and I was strongly supported by the Green Party in objecting to them. What has happened to change this in the meantime? To take Committee and Report Stages together is a real abrogation of the democratic process and I deplore it as I do the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny. Then there is the 6 p.m. deadline for getting amendments in. It is astonishing that we be given 12 hours to submit amendments for this sort of business.

The business of Sitka spruce should be addressed. The Sitka spruce is a foreign tree. The plantations introduce a very dangerous acidic element to water and so on.

I am not anti-forestry. A connection of mine, the late Lord Castletown, was very enthusiastic about planting and he planted his own estates across the Slieve Bloom mountains in the early years of the last century. In my own neck of the woods, in County Laois, the Mountrath sawmills is a very important employer. I am not averse to the sector. It is very interesting that of the submissions which objected to the Bill, 94.5% came from the public. That is something that needs to be taken into account. There is a strong interest among the public on this matter.

The Bill appears to have been introduced as a result of a recent judgment which identifies a failure of the forestry licensing sector of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to carry out impact assessments that require compliance with the environmental impact assessment, EIA, directive, the habitats directive and the birds directive as part of the licensing regime. The negative impact this failure has had on agricultural health, environmental health, and public health has so far been unquantified due to lack of assessment. We cannot change those negative impacts and historical degradation of a multitude of human, animal, plant and bird habitats. As it stands, the agricultural sector is already under huge pressures due to failures to environmentally assess other impacts in other schemes such as soil degradation from toxic pollutants and microplastic in sewage sludge for example.

Our agri industry is central to our economy and even aside from environmental and public health concerns raised by the forestry sector our important agri sectors should be protected from further impacts. To hide from impacts that the forestry industry may have on the environment will only cause the hastening of the collapse of other sectors which are facing multiple threats including reduction in pollinators, invasive species, and climate change. Departments must stop looking at sectoral management of industries and instead have cross-sector management and impact plans so that all sectors increase viability and production.

Ireland is a party to Forest Europe which incorporates the Rio forest principles. It is a pan-European ministerial level voluntary political process for the promotion of sustainable management of European forests.I am quoting from the United Nations Forest Principles, Article 2(c) of which state, "The provision of timely, reliable and accurate information on forests and forest ecosystems is essential for public understanding and informed decision-making and should be ensured." The principles recommend in Article 2(d) that, "Governments should promote and provide opportunities for the participation of interested parties ... in the development, implementation ... of national forest policies."

Public participation increases public awareness of forests and forestry, enhances social acceptance of sustainable forest management and shares costs and benefits in a fair and equitable way. It can contribute to the reduction of forest conflicts and nurture a positive relationship. Participatory forest management has become a widely accepted solution to forestry problems.

Any person interested enough to make a submission should be allowed to fully participate in the process. It is extraordinary that information is being withheld with respect to an index of submissions. The knowledge that people may bring can only help to inform the committee. The backlog will eventually be processed and the system will be better for the new requirements relating to environmental impact assessment, EIA. For the time being the appropriate action would be to employ ecological experts to help process the EIA sections of the licence applications.

The fact remains that to date, the applications lodged were not compatible with the law. If there is a backlog in the criminal courts, we do not restrict who can be a juror in order to speed up the deliberation process, nor do we dictate that only those with financial means can be a juror. This would cause a mistrial. In the same vein, restricting who can appeal a decision means the appeal can never be valid. It is a wholly unreasonable proposition. The public should be seen as a resource to be utilised and not as an obstacle to be overcome.