Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State and compliment her on the good work being done. I know that there are many challenges and that there is road to go. I also compliment Senator Garvey on reminding us of the importance of trees. They are indeed wonderful and we should think a lot about them. I would like to see that furniture. I do not know how rough it is but it would certainly be better than what this pair of paws would produce, I am sure.

I remember being in Rome a number of years ago and visiting the Basilica of San Clemente, which is a beautiful church and one of the treasures of Rome. It has been run by the Irish Dominicans for many years and, in fact, it was a priest from Lanesborough in the 19th century who caused the excavations to be done that discovered, right at the base, the remains of a temple of the Mithraic cult. It is wonderful at so many levels. The beautiful apse at the back of it, which I think is executed in wood, dates back 800 or 900 years and depicts the tree of life and, of course, there is the whole Christian linkage with the cross. It has the interconnectedness through the swirling branches and leaves, with all aspects of human activity - all trades and so on - and it is one of the treasures of the world.

To return to more practical issues and today's topic, I recall that the Government had set a target of 4,500 forestry licences to be processed in 2021. I heard most of the Minister of State's speech on the screen before I came to the Chamber. She told the Dáil recently that the target will be missed and that it is likely that 4,000 or so licences will be issued. Of course, it has to be acknowledged that is a major improvement on 2017, when just 3,000 were issued, but it is still a long way off the 6,700 issued in 2016.

As we all know, what led to the collapse in the number of licences being issued was the very broad right of appeal which existed against the issuing of licences, with virtually anybody being allowed to challenge a decision. The latter gave rise to a backlog of appeals extending to two years. Of course, there has been a knock-on effect in many areas and we have discussed in this House before those knock-on effects, in particular the limiting of the supply of timber needed for homebuilding. In September of last year, I spoke in the debate on the Forestry (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2020, which was designed to deal with the backlog in the licensing system. The Minister of State has given us an update on where things now stand in regard to that backlog 13 months after the passage of the Bill into law. However, I want to recall one of the cases I knew of where a 20-year investment had been held up and caused much financial pain as a result. It is important that we continue to remember there may be a great many people in similar situations.

It is a two-pronged approach that is needed, first, that better quality licensing decisions be made in the first instance and, second, that when those decisions are appealed by those who have a direct stake in the matter, such appeals are processed speedily. The question for us will be whether those two aims are being met following the passage into law of the new legislation last year.

One deficiency which I pointed out in the context of the Act was the issue of the right to appeal. Originally, it was proposed that that right should be restricted to those who have a direct interest in the matter by virtue of the fact they occupy adjoining land or have contributed to the consultation process at an earlier stage. To me, that seemed entirely reasonable. It is in line with the rule which generally applies in court settings that a person may only pursue either litigation or an appeal of an administrative function if they have locus standito do so because they are somehow affected. That approach prevents a glut of spurious appeals or actions by persons who have little or no direct interest in matters at hand but who may have some other motive. There is no reason why an exception to the general rule should exist in regard to forestry licensing and I would be glad to hear the Minister of State's continuing thoughts on that. My understanding was that we had approached a position last year where virtually 100% of forestry licences were being appealed, which suggested a very large number of vexatious appeals being made.

It has to be acknowledged that environmental campaigners do good work but there can be serial litigants in their ranks as well. They have suggested that limiting the right to appeal breaches the Aarhus Convention on justice in environmental matters. That convention states that there must be “adequate and effective remedies” and that the procedures must be “fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive”. Limiting the right to appeal against forestry licences to those who are affected by them does not appear to breach either the spirit or the letter of those requirements under the Aarhus Convention. I note as well, in fairness, that under section 4 of the 2020 Act, the Forestry Appeals Committee has the power to strike out appeals that it considers to be vexatious. Again, I would be glad to hear more from the Minister of State about how she thinks this is operating in practice and whether many appeals have been dismissed on the grounds that they are vexatious.

One aspect of the passage of that legislation that troubled me was that environmental groups – again, I acknowledge their importance and their role - seemed to have success in scuppering sections of the Act which related to environmental bodies and their ability to mount appeals. An Taisce had originally described the proposal as being arbitrary and restrictive. I did not think so and that proposal, and what was contained in the Act, seemed to me to be reasonable. Environmental groups must not be actively prohibited or discriminated against but people do not have a God-given right to police all forestry licences or developments generally. It seems that it is all about a balance of some sort being struck. That is an issue that needs to be continually examined.

I will leave it at that. I look forward to hearing what the Minister of State and other speakers have to say