Paul Daly (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House to discuss the Animal Health and Welfare and Forestry (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2021. Like Senator Boyhan, I also had a communication from Councillor Moriarty. I welcome her endeavours to contact all Senators on behalf of her constituents, one of whom is one of the three farmers ultimately affected by this legislation.

It is agreed across all political parties and by those who are members of none that the day has come for the prohibition of fur farming. There is no longer an argument for it to continue. That has been accepted by the three farms involved. As stated by Senator Boyhan, we now need to get the compensation package right. I note from the Bill that the specific detail of the compensation scheme will be provided for in regulations made by the Minister. In that regard, the buck will stop with the Minister of State. I hope she will take on board our requests. I was unavailable on the evening on which the relevant meeting of the agriculture committee was held. I ask the Minister of State or her officials to review the proceedings of that committee when they come to making the final decision.

I welcome that an independent assessor is to be employed. I accept that for legislation to stand up, it is important to dot all the i's and cross all the t's and to include the safety of the right of appeal for both sides. I am a little alarmed about even raising the issue of a right of appeal to the High Court given this will affect only three farmers. It would be normal in circumstances like this for the Minister or Department to negotiate with a stakeholders forum or representative body. As there are only three businesses involved, I do not understand why it would not be possible to have all of those directly affected at the table when the final package is being negotiated.

I have had correspondence not only from Councillor Moriarty but from all three people affected. They have a number of requests, which have been already outlined but they are important enough to repeat again. As a farmer, the Minister of State will know that not only in this commodity but in all commodities there are price cycles. The past two and a half years in the context of the Covid-19 crisis have been difficult for many sectors. As has been stated, it would be totally inappropriate that the income of these farmers for those particular years would be used as a baseline in respect of the calculation of the compensation. I support Senator Boyhan's proposal that the income over the last seven years be the baseline as that would give a more realistic picture of the turnover, income and profit, which would not have been evident in some of the years currently proposed for the assessment. It is vital that happens. Covid-19 aside, the assessment should be based on a full cycle of prices over seven years.

I have also had requests from some of those involved that they be given the opportunity to review the Grant Thornton report commissioned by the Department.They seem to think they have not had an opportunity to see the report.

The Minister of State said that a lot of information had been sought from the people involved and further information may be required for the independent assessor. I hope the individuals in question will be compensated for the provision of this information, which will require them to employ accountants and maybe even legal representatives. We all know none of that work comes cheap. I hope the compensation will include the expenses and costs they will incur in providing the information that may be requested from them by the Department.

On the forestry side, I welcome the change to the Act and the inclusion of a provision allowing the planting of up to 1 ha without having to go through the rigours of getting an afforestation licence. The devil will be in the detail and this provision is just a foundation. The Minister of State and her officials may incorporate riparian or agriforestry in future schemes. We will have to wait for the detail of those schemes to learn more about how this process will go forward.

I make one plea to the Minister of State. Irrespective of how the schemes are designed, I ask that trees planted without an afforestation licence, following this amendment to the legislation, be incorporated in the national inventory when it comes to the calculation of our net carbon emissions. They will have to be included in accounting for our sequestration totals. We have the ludicrous situation where hedgerows are not included. While I welcome the possibility of farmers all over the country being able to plant up to 1 ha, it would be ridiculous if, like hedgerows, those trees were then not included in the national inventory. It would defeat the whole purpose of selling this scheme and similar schemes for the purpose of combating climate change. That is vitally important. I know progress is being made on the possibility of including hedgerows in the national inventory but given that this measure is in its infancy, the inclusion of these trees will have to be set in stone from the word go. Other than that, I warmly welcome the Bill.

On fur farming, the buck will stop with the Minister of State. There are only three people involved. They are all in rural areas and provide employment. Considering that their enterprises are now being taken from them, if they are to move on to the next stage of whatever their lives may hold, they will need seed capital to start something else. I hope they are not short-changed. That is my plea.