Frances Black (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is very welcome to the House. I am in broad support of the Government's proposed legislation and welcome its provisions on the welfare of certain farmed animals in Ireland and related biodiversity. However, I have significant concerns about the sections of the Bill that relate to forestry licences.

As previous speakers acknowledged, the practice of farming animals specifically for the production of pelt is outdated. In saying this, we are not condemning in any way the three farms in Ireland currently breeding mink for their fur, which are provided for in the current law. Instead, we are saying we no longer feel it is appropriate or necessary to breed animals specifically for the purpose of fur production and asking these three fur farms to come with us on the journey as we build a society that treats animals and the natural environment with greater care.

I am glad the Government is prioritising this legislation and taking learnings from EU counterparts that have successfully outlawed fur farming without it having a negative economic impact on the affected farms. Fur farming is not a traditional industry with heritage that needs to be preserved but we need to ensure the businesses currently operating legitimately and their workers are compensated for the loss they will incur due to this new legislation. I warmly welcome the provisions made in the Bill in that regard. I would like some clarification from the Minister of State on the proposed timeline of the legislation and what lead-in time is intended to be provided to the three fur farms in order that they can begin to phase out their operations over a gradual period. In addition, I am curious about whether any efforts have been made to support the affected fur farms to diversify their businesses such that they could make a positive contribution to the environment and Irish wildlife.

While this Bill will have a positive impact on animal welfare and biodiversity here, we need to have a broader conversation about the international fur trade. This legislation will not have the broader intended effect if we continue to play a role in the trade of farmed fur products internationally. Consultations are taking place in the UK on the trade of fur trade. We should consider advancing conversations of this nature at European level.

On the issue of animal welfare, I cannot speak on this Bill without mentioning the concerns I have about the health and welfare of other animals, specifically in the greyhound racing and hare coursing industries. Figures published yesterday in the Irish Examiner highlighted that the number of greyhound deaths at Irish racetracks rose to their highest ever level in 2021, with 154 deaths recorded by Greyhound Racing Ireland last year in addition to 197 injuries. The true figures are likely to be much higher. It is beyond me, in this day and age, that we continue to provide such vehement support to industries that are treating animals in this way for the purpose of "entertainment".

My Civil Engagement Group colleagues and I have a number of concerns about the forestry provisions contained in the Bill. From my reading of it, the provisions to change the Forestry Act 2014 were introduced by ministerial amendment on Committee Stage and there was no mention of such provisions when the Bill was introduced initially in the Dáil. While we acknowledge the important role of forestry in combating both the climate and biodiversity crises, our group is concerned about how these changes are being introduced. I am concerned that in passing this legislation we will award the Minister a blank cheque in respect of powers with which he or she could seek to decide on exemptions and a regime to allow for unregulated planting. The Climate Change Advisory Council emphasised in its technical report on the carbon budgets the importance of the right tree in the right place and noted that impacts of climate measures on biodiversity are context-dependent and require "... assessment on a case by case basis to determine how to implement 'the right action in the right place'." This criterion must apply to our actions in forestry.

I ask the Minister of State why size-based thresholds are being applied in this legislation when Ireland's application of size-based thresholds was found to be an issue for their use in screening out requirements for environmental impact assessments in case C-66/06 before the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2008. The area defined in this Bill as a native tree area can be up to 1 ha, which for perspective, is more than the area covered by 38 tennis courts. This is a huge amount of land to exempt from section 22 of the 2014 Act. What provisions are in place for public participation and access to justice on these matters? It is vitally important that in any changes we make to the current regime, our obligations under the Aarhus Convention are upheld. I am concerned that in passing this legislation we will instead contravene those obligations. My colleague Senator Higgins is very concerned about these provisions and we may seek to introduce amendments on Committee Stage to address these concerns. I thank the Minister of State for taking the time to be with us in the Chamber and look forward to her response.