Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit agus tá súil agam go n-éireoidh go geal léi ina ról nua.

I welcome the Bill in general terms. It addresses what has grown into a serious problem in recent years. With the very broad right of appeal that exists against the issuing of licences in this area, and felling licences, virtually anybody can challenge a decision. As a result, there is a backlog of appeals that now stands at over two years, which has knock-on effects in many areas. For example, it limits the supply of timber for home building. It also has an impact on people who have planted trees on their land because they cannot reap a financial dividend as a result of delays due to these appeals. One is not talking about big farmers in every case. One could be talking about people with small enough parcels of land who made an investment and must wait to reap the necessary dividend after a period of time. They are being held up.

One thing that the Minister of State did not reference in her speech was how soon we can expect the backlog to be lifted. I am not just talking about the backlog caused by 100% appeals but also, as she acknowledged, the increasing delay in the issuing of licences in the first place. I know steps have been made and ecology people have been appointed, but I know of a case in which a 20-year investment has been held up. In April 2019, an application for a felling licence was made yet they still have not heard anything apart from an initial acknowledgment of the application. How soon is it reasonable for people - big and small players - to expect their cases to be dealt with in that kind of scenario?

I was very struck by what Senator Lombard said when he mentioned that builders cannot acquire 6 in. by 3 in. planks due to the delay in granting felling licences, that there is a disastrous bottleneck in the forestry and timber industry, and that instead of locally produced and suppled timber it will have to be imported from Scotland. I recall that the Minister of State mentioned Scotland in her speech. She said that the right of third parties to appeal is rare across Europe and instanced Scotland, which is pretty ironic. It brings out the tension that exists here between different legitimate aspirations. On the one hand, there is the aspiration to hold decision-makers, businesspeople and foresters to account and the aspiration to protect the environment and promote environmental diversity. To be honest, these aspirations are in tension with the need to protect and develop our timber industry and the need to protect jobs, livelihoods and people's way of life. In the same way that I sympathise with Senator McGreehan's enthusiasm for native trees, we must acknowledge that there is a reason that farmers and others plant Sitka spruce. A dairy farmer who wants to make money will have Friesian cows or maybe Montbéliarde cows if he has a more exalted taste, and he will not buy or breed Aberdeen Angus or Charolais for milking. That is why growers opt to plant Sitka spruce and the like. I sympathise with the Senator. I agree that we need to promote our native species and establish carbon sinks.

There was something for everyone in the contribution made by Senator Dooley. At the same time we are at a time in our economy and our country when we simply must put Irish economic and social life at the centre and protect people's economic well-being.

This legislation is long overdue. I do not like rushed legislation but where was the previous Government? This problem has existed since 2018. The Minister of State cited to us the growing levels of appeals set against the paltry number of resolved cases year-on-year and getting worse year after year.

Regarding the mass appealing of licences, where was the previous Government? Senator Cummins was the first to mention the notion of vexatious appeals and this legislation rightly provides for the possibility of dismissing such appeals. When 100% of licences are appealed, one must think that there is an element of vexatious activity going on. That is simply a fact.It is not even an opinion at this stage. I say that in full knowledge and respect of the fact that we cannot just let people go off and do whatever they want. There are legitimate interests to be protected and NGOs have an important role in securing those legitimate interests, but in this case the facts speak for themselves. For that and other reasons, it is not at all unreasonable to have a charge for those who are challenging decisions, although I would support the rights of members of local authorities not to be subject to such a charge because they have a particular role in acting in the public interest. As a general rule, however, we should all be ready to pay for our principles sometimes, at least to some extent.