Seanad debates

Tuesday, 8 February 2022

Animal Health and Welfare and Forestry (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2021: Second Stage

 

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

2:30 pm

Photo of Pippa HackettPippa Hackett (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to be here to introduce the Animal Health and Welfare and Forestry (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2021. The Bill went through all five Stages in the Dáil, and pre-legislative scrutiny before that, and is now before the Seanad.

The Title of the legislation was changed on Committee Stage in the Dáil to the Animal Health and Welfare and Forestry (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2021 from the Animal Health and Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2021 to reflect amendments to the Forestry Act 2014 introduced by me and incorporated in the Bill.

The purpose of the legislation is to prohibit fur farming in Ireland, provide for a compensation scheme for the farmers affected and introduce other miscellaneous amendments to the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013. The legislation also introduces some unrelated but important amendments to the Forestry Act 2014, enabling the Minister to facilitate small-scale planting of native trees without the need to first obtain an afforestation licence.

I will now deal with the main provisions in the Bill. Section 1 is a Short Title and commencement section. It defines the Short Title of the Bill as the Animal Health and Welfare and Forestry (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021. The section also contains a commencement provision which will authorise me to choose the date on which the provisions of this legislation will come into operation.

Section 2 is the definition section. It contains one definition only. The Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013 is defined as the "Act of 2013".

Section 3 is an amendment to the definition of "animal product" set out in section 2 of the 2013 Act. The new definition will include wool, skin, fur or feathers derived from an animal.

Section 4 is an amendment of section 39 of the Act of 2013. Section 39 provides gardaí with a power of arrest without warrant for certain animal health and welfare offences.

Section 5 is an amendment of section 52 of the Act of 2013. Section 52 provides for the penalties that apply to animal health and welfare offences. The offence will be prosecuted on indictment only, indicating the serious nature of the offence and the person convicted will be liable to a fine not exceeding €250,000 and-or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years.

Section 6 repeals Part 12 of the Act of 2013. The latter contains provisions in respect of the regulation and licensing of animal marts. This part of the 2013 Act has never been commenced. The Minister's sole policy concern in relation to marts relates to animal health and animal welfare and not the "business of an animal mart" as currently provided for in Part 12.

Section 7 inserts a new Part 12A into the 2013 Act, containing 13 separate sections that collectively provide for matters such as the prohibition on fur and skin farming, compensation for existing fur farmers and related ancillary matters. These new provisions are sections 71A to 71M.

Section 71A provides for a set of definitions to apply to specific terms appearing in this new Part 12A of the Animal Health and Welfare Act. Of particular importance here is the wide definition of "specified animal", which ensures that the prohibition on fur and skin farming contained in this new part is extensive. It should also be noted, however, that the definition of what constitutes fur or skin farming is confined to the breeding, rearing or keeping of specified animals solely or primarily for the value of their fur or skin, etc. This prohibition will therefore not apply to animals farmed primarily for other purposes. A further definition to note is the definition of a "redundant worker". A redundant worker is defined as an employee who was dismissed during the period commencing six months before and ending six months after, the date of commencement of the Act. This provision applies certain parameters and limits to the group of workers that will be eligible when compensation is being calculated.

Section 71B contains the prohibition on fur and skin farming and creates a new criminal offence of engaging in fur or skin farming in contravention of the section.

Section 71C provides for a procedure to be followed for the disposal of specified animals that have been seized by authorised officers on the basis that they are being kept for the value of their fur or skin. The Minister shall, as soon as is practicable after the seizure and detention, apply to the District Court for an order authorising the disposal.

Section 71D sets out the overarching principles that will govern the compensation payable to existing fur farming enterprises that will be forced to cease their business activities as a direct consequence of the prohibition on fur farming provided for in this Bill. Compensation will be payable for income losses, non-income losses and costs incurred as a direct result of the prohibition. The amount of compensation for each affected fur farming business is to be determined by an independent assessor to be appointed by the Minister.

The Bill contains principles and policies that authorise the Minister to make regulations to specify the income and non-income losses and other costs in respect of which compensation will be payable; the basis of valuation for assessing income and non-income losses, and to provide for financial limits to apply to certain compensation payments where appropriate. Regulations will also provide compensation for the costs involved in disposing of breeding mink, demolition and clean-up costs, for payments required to be made to redundant workers, for certain professional fees incurred in the preparation of applicants’ claim form and in the making of representations to my Department relating to the development of this legislation.

Regulations can also be made to provide for a number of administrative matters including advanced payments to claimants prior to any final determination of their compensation entitlements under this Bill, the appointment of an assessor, the form and content of applications for compensation, information required to be furnished by applicants and any other matters that are incidental, supplemental and consequential thereto.

Section 71E provides for the appointment of an assessor to determine the amount of compensation that will be payable to an applicant. The person so appointed must possess an appropriate level of skill, knowledge and qualifications to perform this important function. The assessor shall be independent and shall be paid fees and expenses as determined by the Minister and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.Section 71F establishes the procedure to be followed when an application for compensation is received by the Minister. Section 71G provides the assessor with the power to require further information or documentation from an applicant if the assessor considers that it is reasonably necessary to have the additional information. The assessor may issue a notice in writing requiring applicants to provide further information or documents or to verify such information or documents within a define period for response. Where the information or documents are in the power, possession or procurement of a third party, the applicant shall make every reasonable effort to obtain that information.

Section 71H provides direction to an assessor on how to proceed in the event of a failure of the applicant to co-operate. Section 71I provides for the procedure that the assessor will be required to follow in determining a compensation application under this Bill. Section 71J provides for an appeal option where either the Minister or an applicant is dissatisfied with the assessors compensation determination. Appeals against the assessors determination will be brought in the High Court and applicants will have three months to lodge any such appeal. The High Court will have the power to affirm, vary or set aside an assessor's determination. The High Court will also have the power to remit an assessor's determination back to the Minister should it consider it appropriate to do so. However the High Court in affirming, varying or setting aside an assessor's determination, may do so only when there is a serious and significant error or a series of such errors in the determination. The legislation will provide an effective right of appeal against an assessor's compensation determination should any party consider it necessary to challenge same. Section 71K is related to High Court appeal options while section 71L deals with payment of compensation. Section 71M covers the revocation of licences. The legislation provides for the revoking of all licenses to mink farms for the value of their fur that are current on the day before the commencement of Part 12A of the Bill.

Section 8 is an amendment to Schedule 3 of the 2013 Act. Section 9 is an amendment of the Forestry Act 2014 and introduces definitions that facilitate the promotion of small scale planting of native tree species in a nuanced manner. The section defines "native tree area" as meaning:

land under trees—

(a) with— (i) an area of not less than 0.1 hectare and not greater than 1 hectare, or

(ii) an area of not less than 0.1 hectare that is not greater than 20 metres in width, and (b) where the trees concerned are native tree species only, of which not more than 25 per cent are Scots pine

Section 9(b) aims to enable the State to successfully transition to a low-carbon, environmentally sustainable economy. Under this section the State will be able to introduce schemes to incentivise the planing of native tree areas. Section 9(c) introduces text that permits the Department to facilitate the planting of native trees without an afforestation licence under section 22 of the Forestry Act 2014. Section 9(d) through the planting of native trees, enables the State to successfully transition to a low-carbon, environmentally sustainable economy. This amendment is supported by additional provisions to ensure that any scheme protects the environment and complies with environmental law. Section 9(e) introduces a reference to a native tree area grant into section 27 of the Forestry Act 2014 which deals with offences and penalties. Where an applicant furnishes information or makes a statement that he or she knows to be false or misleading in a material respect, he or she shall be guilty of an offence under the Forestry Act 2014. Section 9(f) introduces a schedule that lists the native tree species for which the amendment will apply. Any scheme subsequently created on foot of this amendment will also be confined to the native tree species listed in the schedule.

Section 10 repeals certain legislation. It provides for the repeal of the Milk (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1979. This Act is no longer required and will now not be replaced.

I have presented a detailed view of the provisions of the Bill and now welcome comments from Senators.

Photo of Róisín GarveyRóisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is another great day for the Minister of State whose portfolio includes biodiversity and land use. This Bill is so important. Not only did the Green Party get this included in the programme for Government, we now see it coming to fruition.

Everyone knows that it is barbaric to have fur and skin farming and such farming will no longer take place in this country. There will be a complete ban on fur and skin farming, thanks to the work of the Minister of State, with support from the Government.

As someone who lives in the middle of nowhere with a couple of acres of land, I am really happy to see the removal of the need for an afforestation licence to plant up to 2.4 acres or 1 ha of native woodland. This is a game changer. Many people have contacted me about this issue. They have land, are aware of climate change and understand the importance of trees in the context of carbon sequestration. They have asked why planting trees is so complicated and why it is not possible to plant on some of their land. Today is a good day for them. I had many people to contact when I saw this legislation coming through because they have been looking for this. While 2.4 acres might not seem like much to some people, it is an awful lot to others. If every farmer and landowner takes part in this scheme, it will be a total game changer in terms of biodiversity, native species, flooding and water quality. It can be a seriously good win for rural Ireland as well as for the environment.

The design of the initiative to utilise these measures will have to ensure compliance with all environmental law, of course. In advance of the development of a scheme, the Department will undertake a strategic environmental assessment in order to develop thorough scheme criteria. Advisory structures and approval processes will be put in place. The inclusion of an exemption can be undertaken in a legally compliant and sustainable manner. Not only is the Minister of State doing it, she is doing it correctly. It is not being rushed through. It will be done properly, with all aspects considered in terms of best practice and the best use of land.

I also welcome the limit of 25% on Scots pine. There is almost a phobia about pine or Sitka spruce at this stage. One is in danger of being lynched if one mentions them. There is a more nuanced debate to be had Sitka spruce, forestry and the need for same in the context of Rebuilding Ireland and having the materials required to build houses. It is great that the Minister of State has focused on this and given it the time it needs. I thank her officials for working on this legislation.

I am living on the farm that I grew up on and I see much less native wildlife, including birds. I have seen a red squirrel once. All of the things that we grew up with and took for granted are not being seen by our children. They are not experiencing what we experienced. The amendments in this Bill could be a game changer in terms of reintroducing a lot of native species. I also see a lot of flooding due to bad river management involving hard engineering. This legislation is a really good win because every tree is a column of water. That is how we need to start seeing trees. They soak up water and reduce flooding. Not only that, their root systems hold onto soil and stop it from being washed away, which is another really important benefit of tree planting. A tree is not just a lovely green thing to look at on a nice day when one has nothing to be doing. Trees are hugely important in how we move forward as a country and lead the way around native woodlands. Woodlands are also great places for kids to go to play and climb in. I spoke to a friend of mine recently who said that it would be great if children could go out and play in forests like we all did as children, unsupervised, where they can learn to hurt themselves but pick themselves back up, play with sticks and stones and live in the realm of the imagination. This is so important. If every farmer and landowner in Ireland puts in a hectare of native woodland, that will enable children, teenagers and everybody else to enjoy native woodlands again. During Covid and lockdown we all asked, where are our open spaces, where is our nature, where are our beautiful native trees? No matter what kind of person you are, if you go into a native woodland, you will come out a happier person.

I welcome this day and really appreciate the Minister of State's work on this, along with her colleagues in the Department.

Photo of Victor BoyhanVictor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State and her officials to the House. As she said, the programme for Government includes a commitment to end fur farming. The tripartite Government agreed to a prohibition and I welcome it. Indeed, it should have been outlawed a long time ago. I want to acknowledge the focus of the Green Party on this, among other items that I do not have time to discuss today. Clearly, the experience of being in government previously has taught the Green Party some lessons, one of which is to get out of the traps early and get one's message across. While I might have concerns about other measures and policies of the party, in this particular case, it is the right decision.

It is important to stress that fur farming is a lawful activity. It is a job for some. We are talking about three farms and three individuals operating businesses.As of today, they are within the law. I call on the Minister of State to insist on a fair compensation package for them. If the Government decided tomorrow to stop turkey farming on animal welfare or other grounds, it would be a crazy idea which I would not support. I have real concerns about the business these people are running, which the Government has collectively decided to close down. The argument and battle are over and we have moved on. We have control over a decent and fair compensation package for the people who have invested heavily in this trade. I ask the Minister of State to clarify that it is the case that these people are prohibited from selling these mink and their mink stock cannot be sold. They are valuable and they cannot go outside the State. There are reasons for that and I understand them too. I ask the Minister of State to confirm that in her reply.

Councillor Norma Moriarty from Waterville in Kerry engaged with me yesterday, as did other people, but she particularly impressed upon me the importance of the engagement on fur farm activities in her local community. She made the point that the Department had mentioned an assessment of the business model or income for the past five years. The past two and a half years have been really bad for most people. I suggest that the Department assess the best three years of the past seven years. We are talking about three businesses. We need to be fair and give them an honest assessment.

There are three active farms in the State. Councillor Moriarty made the point well that they are employing people, contributing to the local economy and are viable businesses. Most important, they are legal businesses which the Government has decided to shut down. I support that decision but I also support the very important need for compensation. I know Senator Paul Daly is very active in this regard as well. We met many of these groups when they appeared before the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture and Food, where we made the point that we wanted adequate compensation for the employees as well. It is not all about the employers. The employees who work in this area must also get a fair package. To suggest that they should be given a few weeks' standard redundancy is not good enough. I would like to think that some of the compensation these businesspeople will get will be used by them to develop new enterprises, perhaps in other areas of animal husbandry or other activities. Let us hope that it will be seed capital for new business in rural communities, one of which the Minister of State represents. She knows the heartbeat of the rural economy and rural communities. That is very important.

It is important that mink farmers are compensated. How that is to be calculated is a little scientific. The specific detail with regard to the methodology around the calculation of the compensation payable is important. What we do here is very important. The legislation gives the Minister powers. It also makes it an offence to engage in fur farming and it provides for appropriate penalties, which is a follow-on from what the Minister of State is proposing.

I want to speak about trees. As stated by the Minister of State, trees play a very important part climate change mitigation and diversity. I fully respect that. I refer to the great Green Party analogy and byline that it is about the right trees in the right places. I have some concern with regard to the proposal to have 25% Scots pine. I do not understand the logic behind that but I am to be convinced. I welcome that the emphasis has to be on native trees, in particular native deciduous trees. They are small enough plantations but if this scheme were to be rolled out, the cumulative effect would be significant. It should be encouraged and welcomed but, as I said, I have some concerns about what is proposed.

I ask the Minister of State to clarify in her reply that these measures are not a substitute for the ongoing work to reform the licensing process or for large afforestation sites which remain the priority for the Department. I want to discuss the opening up of the forestry licence business. We have serious concerns about forestry licences and the infrastructure associated with that. We have to get timber out of forests. The economy, rural communities and the construction industry need it. It is becoming a great difficulty and frustration for many. I know the Department is focused on it and that things move slowly. That is perhaps a matter for another day so I do not expect the Minister of State to dwell on it.

I have been asked by the Irish Environmental Network to raise concerns about the strategic environmental assessment, the SE directives and so on and the importance that decisions in this area are made in compliance with environmental law and appropriate assessment. The Minister of State is aware of all of the issues around that. This is about compliance with environmental law such as the environmental impact assessment, EIA, the habitats directive and the water framework directive, all of which the Minister of State is familiar with. They are really important. It is about how we consult people and ensure we are on the right side of all of that. We have obligations on consultation under the Aarhus Convention. The scheme and the criteria around it have to be legally compliant. I know the Minister of State is conscious of that but it is important to flag these issues with her because clearly they are issues of consent, which will exercise some people outside of this House. I flag them because I may introduce some amendments in regard to these areas on Committee Stage.

I want to flag the issues of strategic environmental assessment and appropriate assessment, the legal requirements of the EIA and the water framework directive. It is important that the scheme addresses those issues. Hopefully, we can have meaningful engagement on it. In principle, they are both really good ideas. I welcome the end of mink farming. I beg the Minister of State to ensure there is a fair deal for the three businesses that are being shut down. Hopefully, the compensation they get will be used to compensate their workers but also as seed capital to bring new businesses into their communities.

Photo of Paul DalyPaul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Photo of Garret AhearnGarret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the Chamber and welcome her home, if I can put it that way. I thank her for the very effective and strong work she has been doing in her portfolio for almost two years. I urge her to continue with that work because it is very important.

As other speakers have said, everyone accepts that this Bill is necessary and legislates for a commitment made by the previous Government. In fairness to the three businesses in question, they also recognise that. They have wanted to work with the Government, Department and Minister on how to do that best. That is the real issue. We are here to speak on their behalf because they are in a very difficult situation. This is one of the first times a Government has decided to close all the businesses in a sector. How we do that and support and compensate these businesses is very important.

Last summer, these businesses made numerous calls for an opportunity to appear before the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine to air their views during the pre-legislative scrutiny stage. They had to fight for an opportunity to speak and it was important for them to do that. On the back of that, it is frustrating for them that they have not seen any development. They probably feel they have been left out of the loop. As previous speakers noted, these people have certain issues they want addressed. They made five asks at a committee meeting held during the pre-legislative scrutiny stage of the Bill. I have been asked to put these forward today. They relate to staff redundancy and reskilling, particularly in rural areas. The three affected businesses are located in County Donegal, County Laois and Waterville, County Kerry. They are seeking agreement to compensation for farmers; agreement on costs for the demolition of farms, which is crucial; an environmental assessment of the area of the farm prior to demolition; and the opportunity to view and discuss the report compiled by the Department's auditors, Grant Thornton. The businesses believe they have not had the opportunity to do any of these things because they have not had engagement. They welcome a compensation package, which is important, but they need to know what it will be.

The two main questions are very simple. When will the businesses close and what will the compensation be? The talk that the compensation will be based on earnings over the previous five years seems very unfair because those were loss-making years. It would be much fairer on the businesses to extend that period to seven or ten years. That has been done in other jurisdictions so it would not be unique.

The real ask is for information. These people totally understand that their businesses must close. Some of them want to go on to a different life or career or start another business. None of that is possible until they know what type of compensation they are to get and how much they will get for the demolitions on their lands, which can be tricky and costly. They need to have that information as soon as possible. As previous speakers have said, this situation does not just concern employers but employees as well. They need to be able to upskill and they need opportunities somewhere else.

These are businesses in rural Ireland. We are trying to encourage people to leave city centres and have a life, job, career and better quality of life. In counties Donegal, Laois, Kerry and my home county of Tipperary we try to offer that but we need to ensure it is available. I stress the importance of being open with these businesses and letting them know as quickly as possible when decisions will be made and how much compensation they will receive when the source of their livelihoods is closed down.

On forestry, I welcome what the Minister of State has announced. The position in forestry is improving month on month, which is extremely important for County Tipperary. There are numerous sawmills in the county, including Dunnes Sawmills in Drangan, Sheehan Sawmills in Ballyporeen and Dundrum Sawmills. These companies employ an awful lot of people, do good business and provide good jobs in rural areas. It is hugely important that they are viable and that the Department processes forestry licences as quickly as possible. I acknowledge that the process has sped up on the Minister of State's watch. When there is improvement people want more and faster improvements. That is an understandable demand. I wish the Minister of State well with the legislation and in the work she is doing.

Photo of Lynn BoylanLynn Boylan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I echo what previous speakers have said in welcoming the aspects of the Bill that relate to a ban on fur farming. It is a barbaric practice and it is about time we, as legislators, caught up with where the public has been for a long time.

Photo of Victor BoyhanVictor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Photo of Lynn BoylanLynn Boylan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sinn Féin, as a party, has opposed the farming of mink since our 2007 Ard-Fheis. I am pleased that, through this legislation, we are moving with the tide against fur farming, which is already banned in other countries, including Austria, Croatia, the Netherlands, Britain and the Czech Republic.It will also become illegal in Norway from 2025. Others have already pointed out that there are just three active farms in the State that breed and rear mink for the purposes of pelting for the fur industry and each December approximately 80% of those mink are killed, while the 20% that are left are kept as breeding stock.

It is important for people to realise that mink is not native to Ireland. Mink is native to Canada and the United States of America and was introduced as a fur farming animal in many parts of Europe in the 1920s and 1930s. I have a background in working in the national park in Killarney and unfortunately that experience showed me the devastation that mink escapes have caused to our biodiversity. It is welcome that at least our ground-nesting birds, waterfowl and fish will no longer have the threat of any more large-scale releases of mink. However, we also need to focus on eradicating the mink that are out there in the wild because it is an invasive species and it does untold damage to our native species.

As others have pointed out, there are issues around those who own the fur farms but I would like to focus more on the workers because of the nature of the industry. It has been a legal industry until now and we are going to make it illegal. While we see that the industry owners are to be compensated, the workers also deserve to know what package will be put in place for them. It is entirely unfair that they will only be eligible for statutory redundancy and I hope the Minister of State will be able to outline how that matter can be addressed going forward, perhaps through a retraining scheme. What progress has been made on the issue of statutory redundancy and does the Minister of State foresee anything above that being provided to those workers? Where are we on the request for a retraining fund for staff being put in place? Given the change the workers will experience in their work life as a result of this Bill, it is only right that the Government steps in to provide training for those workers so that they are not left out of work.

Selfishly, I would like to talk about broadening the scope of this Bill, and I welcome the move to broaden it out to allow for miscellaneous provisions because there are plenty of other animal welfare issues that need to be addressed through legislation. I thought the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, would be here but it is the Minister of State. Maybe she can relay this back to him because he is familiar with the issues I am concerned with and I have engaged with him a number of times, both during pre-legislative scrutiny and during the ongoing post-enactment scrutiny of the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013 at the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

One of the biggest areas of concern has to do with tackling the illegal puppy trade and the smuggling of dogs. Despite the provisions of the 2013 Act, the illegal trade and wanton abuse of puppies is still regularly reported in the media. I will be proposing amendments to this Bill that would address some of the legal loopholes in the legislation that were not foreseen when it was drafted. Nobody will disagree with the fact that the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013 has seen great improvements in animal welfare but we still have a very long way to go to address all the issues, particularly those around dogs. The amendments I want to put forward will tighten up concerns around the proof of ownership of dogs and give primacy to the microchip. Thus, when one gets a licence it would be mandatory to include the microchip number on that licence. I would also like the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013 to align with the Control of Dogs Act 1986, which comes in when an animal is seized due to welfare reasons, whether that is illegal smuggling or just general welfare. The Control of Dogs Act 1986 allows for that animal to be rehomed after five days whereas that is not possible under the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013. That is an oversight from when the legislation was drafted and we need to align those two Acts because authorised officers, such as the Dublin Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, need to go through lengthy and expensive court processes in order to rehome those animals. The animals are generally seized when they are young pups and they are kept for anything up to 18 months before they can be legally rehomed. This serves to strengthen the illegal puppy farmers because they know this and they use this facility to weaken the charities by trying to defund them through lengthy legal processes. I look forward to debating those amendments with the Minister and I hope he will keep an open mind when considering them. Now that the scope of this Bill has been broadened, it would be useful to take those amendments on board.

I refer to forestry. It is a welcome step to sort the uncontroversial projects from the large-scale conifer plantations. We are all familiar with the failures we have had to date in handling the crisis in the forestry system. Unfortunately, time is not on our side and we need to get the issues within forestry resolved as a matter of urgency if we are to have any hope of meeting the climate targets. Much needs to be done to turn the ship around and it is welcome that improvements are being made but we have to resolve the issues within the system itself. We need to establish a system that is fit for purpose, well-resourced, and that screens out the bad planning applications at the start as opposed to trying to prevent people from objecting to those bad planning applications. We need to screen them. As others have said, we need a system that is compliant with the Aarhus Convention and that does not block people from making objections.

I look forward to engaging during the Committee and Report Stage debates and I ask the Minister of State to take back my comments on my animal welfare amendments. They are well-crafted amendments that I have been working on for the last year and a half with the Office of Parliamentary Legal Advisers and I would like if the Government would consider facilitating them in this Bill.

Photo of Annie HoeyAnnie Hoey (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As always, it is a pleasure to welcome the Minister of State back to her own House, particularly to discuss a topic that has been of huge importance to the Green Party. This legislation shows the benefit of having the Green Party in government.

My views on animal rights are not a secret and like many in this House, I abhor animal cruelty. We have a long way to go towards living in harmony with our furry, scaly and winged friends but today we are here to talk about our furry friends. I am glad to speak on behalf of the Labour Party in support of the key principle and purpose of this Bill, that is, to introduce a statutory prohibition on fur farming. Speaking for the Labour Party, and as a long-standing advocate for animal rights, I am glad to see this legislation come before us. There is a growing acceptance of the need for such prohibition and the Bill is receiving a broad welcome, which is good to see. It would be remiss of me not to say I am sad it has taken this long to get to this stage of collective agreement on the banning of the abhorrent and disgusting practice of fur farming but I suppose we should be glad we eventually got here. Hopefully no more innocent animals in Ireland will have to suffer for the sheer vanity of wanting to wear a fur pelt.

I will take this moment to note the alternatives to fur for those who want them. There are bio-based faux furs made from oil from vegetable crops, rather than the traditional petroleum oils. There is the option of using what we already have and using recycled faux fur. I am a particular dab hand at sourcing funky faux fur coats and will happily help anyone who is on the hunt for one online. We all need to move towards making better use of what we already have and have already produced in order to reduce pollution and avoid adding to our already overstuffed landfills.

We could have a conversation about going one step further than what is in this Bill and I know we cannot do that today but I would like for the Minister of State to consider this and take it back with her. We should consider our stance on the importing of fur into Ireland. Our opposition to this practice should not end with simply banning it here. We should not be funding this cruel industry globally. Fur should not be contributing to the already massive carbon footprint of fast fashion and to be perfectly honest, I would be happy to see us reach a point in Ireland where the wearing of fur is considered socially unacceptable. I am aware that this might be seen as an extremely radical position but it is one I stand by.

I have often gotten up in this House and spoken about a just transition for workers and I welcome the fact that there is provision for a compensation scheme in the Bill before us. There is no doubt that jobs will be lost because of this and it is only right and proper that the workers are compensated. Part of the compensation and assessment is regarding the proper dismantling of buildings. Particular issues were raised during the pre-legislative scrutiny on the removal and disposal of asbestos at some of the sites. Given the environmental focus of our time, which is only right and proper, it is important that adequate funding is provided in the scheme for the correct dismantling of buildings with the least amount of damage to the surrounding environs, and that buildings are not simply left to rot, particularly if there is a concern around asbestos. The safe and proper dismantling of buildings must be thoroughly included in the cost of compensation.

I would like to raise a question on section 71C(3) regarding the disposal of animals and I want to clarify what this means for the animals. I note that an application has to be made to the District Court and I assume that what is meant is for the mink to be put down. Does this section mean there will be an automatic disposal or if alternative methods were to be found, could they be utilised? It is vital that these poor animals are treated as humanely as possible.Is it definite that the animals will be put down? I am in no way suggesting they be let out into the wild or anything like that but they must be treated as humanely as possible. I would like the Minister of State to get clarity on that.

While we are on the topic of animal welfare, which is arguably the reason we have this Bill before us given that we agree that farming animals for their fur is an egregious abuse of their welfare, I will take a moment to reflect on the wider issue of animal welfare in this country. I think we can all agree we are a country of animal lovers but also one that, at times, has had a poor track record on accountability for animal cruelty. There are no circumstances, personal or commercial, where it should be permissible to excuse or overlook animal cruelty. We have relatively decent pro-animal legislation in place but enforcement is woeful at times. Every so often an image appears online of some awful, terrible animal cruelty such as a mare with overgrown hooves or a horse left at the side of the road. People pile on and we all proclaim how awful it is and say, "My God, whatever can we do about this?" However, it is extremely rare for perpetrators to be held to account. I am aware there are a variety of reasons for that, including tracing, but we do not hold the perpetrators of animal cruelty to account in the way we should and could do.

I regularly come to the House to discuss giving more money to commercial industries which literally profit off the backs of animals. I note that all welfare charities must share approximately €3 million with the rest of their work done on the basis of goodwill, volunteering and fundraising. My family fundraises regularly for Drogheda Animal Rescue, a small organisation in desperate need of funding to help animals in its care. When I hear the eye-watering figures mentioned in relation to the industries that profit from animals I am sometimes left reeling and I think of my mother trundling down West Street in Drogheda trying to get every penny she can so the animals in the organisation's care can be fed. Large amounts of money have been invested in industries that profit from animals. We are discussing the right and proper compensation for those working in the fur farming and skinning industry and workers losing their livelihoods. I posit that alongside today's conversation, we perhaps need to consider how much money we are investing in animal welfare. When we compare the billions of euro for the industry with the couple of million euro for animal welfare charities, we see an enormous gap. Animal welfare charities often do this work off their own bat, relying on the goodwill of volunteers and without much State support.

I am aware I have gone somewhat off track but I wanted to focus on the animal welfare issue for a moment. There needs to be tougher sentencing for those found guilty of animal cruelty. There should be higher fines and jail sentences and in the most serious cases, life bans from keeping animals, to stop those found guilty of animal abuse reoffending. There also needs to be better funding for the charities that literally pick up the broken pieces of animals people have abandoned. I hope the Minister of State will take back that message under her Green banner and consider those issues which are vital to animal welfare.

I am very glad to speak in support of the Bill. I reiterate my support and that of the Labour Party for this important measure, which will see us finally move to a prohibition on fur farming in the interests of animal health, welfare and rights.

Photo of Frances BlackFrances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Photo of Eugene MurphyEugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Like others, I welcome the Minister of State and this particular legislation. As we now know, this provides for the statutory prohibition of fur farming and will impact on the three active farms in the State. It is important to point out they were acting lawfully but the legislation is to compensate them as they are about to lose their businesses and certain people will lose their jobs.The Bill governs the nature of the compensation scheme that can be provided to ensure that mink farming operators are to be compensated for their losses and costs directly resulting from the prohibition on fur farming in Ireland. The Bill sets out the criteria on which compensation for income loss, non-income loss and certain costs that will be payable, and the type, of costs that will be covered by the compensation scheme under the legislation, will include redundancy payments to the employees, which is important, certain professional fees, mink disposal and clean-up costs and the costs involved in the demolition of mink buildings. There are only three mink farms in the country and it is only right that they would be compensated.

I welcome what is happening in the Bill on forestry. I have been a strong advocate of urging people to plant trees and make things as easy as we can for them. I acknowledge, as have many others, that we have issues with forestry. Hopefully we will get through that and we can encourage more planting of native species. I am sure the Minister of State realises that there is a market for some of the pines that are growing now. It is the only thing that will grow on certain types of land. While we do not want them all over the place, there is a market there. They are important to sawmills and for exporting. While we do have to encourage more native trees, and that is what I want, we do have to keep that in mind.

I will raise a hobby horse of mine. I wonder can it be brought in under the legislation. It relates to the planting of fruit trees. Going back generations, nearly every homestead in this country had an orchard. There could be ten, 12, 15 or maybe 20 trees. Imagine encouraging that and what it would do for our carbon count. Moreover, I was presented with figures recently which I am getting checked out. Someone in the business told me that we are actually spending €80 million on importing apples into this country when we have one of the greatest climates for growing apples in the world. Much of that comes in from France. I know that we have shortages when our own crop runs out and we have to import but imagine the double benefit of covering small tree plantations and allowing it to be included in the carbon count. That is something that should be encouraged because, going back to many of the small and medium farm outlets, there was that orchard. I robbed some of the orchards myself, to be honest. I put my hand up; lámha suas. It really should be followed up. I think that farmers would engage in that. It is another method of getting the carbon count right and it would be doubly productive because we would have all these apples produced and sold in local markets. It is worth doing some research on this issue. I would be really delighted if the Minister of State could look that up and see if we can include it somewhere in the legislation and move forward with it.

Photo of Aisling DolanAisling Dolan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State. I welcome the legislation to prohibit fur farming in Ireland. We are looking at promoting more sustainable fashion but also that we in Ireland would be leaders in animal welfare. It is crucial that there be a package for the farmers that are impacted by their loss of income.

I am particularly interested in the small-scale planting of native trees that is part of the Bill whereby we can increase the native tree planting area by removing the requirement for an afforestation licence for an area of not less than 0.1 ha. and not greater than 1 ha. This is really important for encouraging farmers to take benefit, not to have to do the administrative part of applying for another licence. Can the Minister of State give an update on forestry licences and so on? How many ecologists have been taken on by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to deal with the challenges we have seen in forestry over the last year or two?

I look forward to lots more coming through the Minister of State's remit, particularly under organics although that is not what we are here to talk about. I look forward to an update in that regard. I am sure we will engage again. Hopefully the Minister of State will visit the areas of Roscommon and east Galway in future.

Photo of Seán KyneSeán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State and the publication of the Bill. "Miscellaneous provisions" allows for a number of things being included under the same Title. It is something of a pity because the central provision of the Bill, the ban on fur farming, is worthy enough of its own Bill with its own Title included but I understand the decision.

I served in the Department of the Gaeltacht which is across the road from Agriculture House where there were numerous protests. Perhaps the Minister of State was part of them in her day, I do not know. There were certainly noisy protests for a long number of years. They achieved a result. The ban was announced in Cabinet, of which I was a member, in June 2019. That came about by pressure and campaigning. I welcome the move. It has taken some time from that decision at Cabinet to the publication of the Bill. I know it was part of the programme for Government. As time goes on, there are things that are ethically and morally difficult to defend. That is evident in this case. I am sure that for whoever is here in ten or 20 years' time there may be other things that are taking place now that will equally be deemed difficult to defend. I will leave that for another day. I welcome the central provision and welcome the ethical treatment of the animals as they come to an end and the proper treatment of the owners and the workers who have been operating a legal business. We are, through legislation, closing them down for the reasons as stated.

Turning to the element on native trees, I particularly like the schedule with all the native trees that we have, particularly the hazel, ash, holly, crab apple, Scots pine, Sessile oak, pedunculate oak and the rowan. We are familiar with all those. They add so much beauty and diversity to the Irish countryside. I think I mentioned during the Forestry Bill 2014 the poor holly tree at Christmas. We are not talking about a few branches or a few sprigs of holly but unfortunately in certain cases whole holly trees being cut down at the base and taken away. That is a pity. One sees a lot of situations where they are all male holly trees and none with berries in certain areas. I hope there can be initiatives to enhance the situation regarding holly trees.

An area that comes up every year and will come out again in the next few weeks is that of the forage areas under the basic payments scheme and the disadvantaged areas scheme each year. For example, last year, as it would have been historically, the terms and conditions state that the eligible area excludes woods, scrub, ponds and marshy and wet areas. I understand that because there is very little grazing in those areas and in some cases they may be inaccessible therefore they are not deemed to be eligible. However, they are so important for biodiversity that, quite rightly, farmers are expected to promote them. Lands planted post-2009 are not eligible but presumably plantations pre-2009 are. I am not sure if that includes conifers or just deciduous trees. I am not sure about the areas either.

If there are native schemes that this legislation will allow for, it is important that they would be included in terms of forage areas because there is a difficulty we have in convincing not all but some farmers. I attended the IFA session in Athenry mart some weeks ago. There are some farmers who do not want to plant trees. They feel that it takes land out of production. They feel it is setting them back. Therefore, we have to try and encourage farmers. It is important that if small areas, even up to 1 acre are planted, they would be eligible in terms of forage areas as well. It is worth looking at scrub and so on. Under the satellite scheme, farmers get letters telling them that certain areas are not eligible and sometimes their first inclination is that they should remove it. Obviously we do not want that to happen.It is worth looking at small areas of forage acre like that, where it would be counterproductive to penalise them.

I wish the Minister of State the best of luck in getting the Bill through the Houses.

Photo of Fiona O'LoughlinFiona O'Loughlin (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is welcome. The change to the Title of the Bill was interesting in that it has brought two distinct areas together, but they are two important areas. I welcome and will support the introduction of the legislation, which will deliver a key commitment made in the programme for Government. In the case of mink farming, it will place a statutory prohibition on the practice, which is welcome because it has been considered outdated and inhumane for some time. It was important that certainty was brought in that regard. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the three mink farms in the country that breed and rear mink for the purposes of producing fur. Obviously, they have been operating a lawful, if not popular, business, so it is important that provision be put in place to offer compensation to those three farm businesses.

One key area of interest to the Minister of State’s brief relates to the section on forestry. What she is proposing in that respect through the Bill is welcome. We are all conscious of the problems that have existed in forestry over recent years, and this will remove a legislative barrier to small-scale native planting. Our native trees are very important in all our counties. My county is named after the oak tree, a particularly lovely tree. I am glad to see we are encouraging farmers. As Senator Kyne said, not every farmer will want to go down this road, but it is important we give those who do the opportunity to do so. My family has forestry land in Kildare and it is mainly native. That farmers will no longer have to acquire a licence for an area of not less than 0.1 ha and not greater than 1 ha is important because it will re-engage farmers in forestry and play a part in meeting the ambitious roadmap towards climate neutrality, as outlined in the climate action plan. That target is ambitious compared with that in recent years and it will be challenging to meet in the next decade, which is why measures such as these must be put in place to support and encourage farmers. Obviously, much more needs to be done to increase our forestry rates substantially over the next decade but I have no doubt that, while this is not a substitute for ongoing work, it is a measure that will help and support people.

I certainly welcome and will support the Bill.

Photo of Róisín GarveyRóisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank everyone for their input to this important Bill. It has had two very different Titles, relating to fur farming and the native woodland scheme. It is good that there is a Minister of State in the House who has worked on this Bill. She is one of our own, a Senator. I invite her now to make her concluding remarks.

Photo of Pippa HackettPippa Hackett (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all the Senators for their constructive feedback and their support for the Bill. There are two main issues here and the forestry aspect was added on Committee Stage in the Dáil, for a number of reasons. The main reason related to the fact the Bill was coming from the Department at which I am Minister of State and it was not going to be easy to attach the forestry aspect to a different Department's Bill, but there was also an importance in enabling us to plant more trees, the importance of which was highlighted strongly by all the Senators.

The programme for Government includes a commitment to bringing forward legislation that will prohibit fur farming. As Senator Kyne indicated, it has taken quite a while to get here, but it is here now. Fur farming is still legal, as was highlighted by Senators, but will soon become illegal. We have moved from a position where it was considered socially acceptable to one where it is perhaps less so, and there is now broad consensus, not just among society and citizens, but also among veterinary and other scientific experts that certain animals should not be farmed for their fur or skin because the serious animal welfare concerns cannot be mitigated. That has had an impact on the societal concern in respect of this issue.

As Senators mentioned, there are three active fur farms in the State that breed and rear mink for the purposes of pelting for the fur industry. This statutory prohibition on fur farming will impact on these farms, which currently operate a lawful business. For this reason, the draft legislation makes provision for a scheme of compensation, which the Department will make available to the three farm businesses affected by the prohibition. Several Senators, including Senators Paul Daly, Boyhan and Ahearn, spoke about how we have to ensure it will be a fair compensation package for the farms, and Senator Boyhan and others mentioned the workers specifically. As they noted, we will have to ensure the compensation and redundancy package they face is also fair, and we will endeavour to ensure that is the case. That is only right, and the appointment of an independent assessor will help us in that regard.

The Bill will introduce a number of miscellaneous amendments to the Animal Health and Welfare Act, most notably the forestry provisions, which include provisions to introduce a limited exemption from which a licence to carry out small-scale planting will be allowed It is important to say this is enabling legislation, not a scheme as yet, and we will engage widely with stakeholders in the design of that scheme to ensure it is fit for purpose. It must not impact negatively on the environment, water courses, land or special habitats, and we will work hard to ensure the development of such a scheme will be undertaken following the completion of a strategic environmental assessment and appropriate assessment, which will include stakeholder and public consultation. I hope that will ease some of the concerns expressed by Senator Black and the wider Civil Engagement Group.

Beyond the need to plant trees, there were a few queries on the size of area allowed. At the moment, it is permitted to plant up to 0.1 ha, or about 30 sq. m, without a licence. That is not accounted for in our carbon inventory, whereas anything larger than 0.1 ha is. By raising the permitted size above 0.1 ha, that area will be included, provided it is more than 20 m deep. It is not particularly straightforward, but if we were to plant, for example, a riparian margin, suitably positioned, around a river that was less than 20 m deep, that would not currently be accounted for.

Senator Paul Daly mentioned the work Teagasc is doing in respect of the inventory of hedgerows and trees outside of forests. That work is ongoing. I checked earlier today and it could involve a further year's work. Teagasc will then propose its findings to the EPA, which will make a decision as to whether to include it. That will be progress within the next couple of years. We will, I hope, get to a stage where we can include every hedgerow and potentially every type of tree-planting.Unfortunately, at the moment, from my understanding, if we were to include hedges, we would be in negative territory because we have lost more hedges than we have planted since 2018, so we would be on rather shaky ground. Hopefully, as we kick in, we will reverse that and be in a more positive situation. Plenty of hedges and habitats continue to be removed and destroyed, even as we speak.

On the timelines, we hope the fur farming Bill will be enacted once it has got through the Seanad. We have not set a commencement date as such, but I think it will happen as soon as possible. The fur farmers understand that and, as I understand it, this year's breeding season will not take place. It is fair to say they are aware of that. The engagement has been fairly extensive with my Department and I am sure my Department is open to further engagement with the fur farmers involved to make this as fair as possible. We have had an independent review of the compensation mechanisms to date and we will have to see how that pans out. We hope an independent assessor will be able to come to the fairest package possible.

Senator Kyne noted that basic payment scheme payments are available for forested land. I think there are proposals in the next CAP strategic plan, and not only for the eco-schemes under which we have identified payments for non-productive areas. If we have tree planting in a scheme under this legislation, it would help to support that. There is also a proposal to increase the eligible area to include up to 30% of scrub or rushes on types of land where farmers previously would have felt forced to drain, cut or remove. That is positive for biodiversity into the future.

In response to Senator O'Loughlin, oak is one of the species on the list of native trees. It is one of our best and most special native species, and that is to be welcomed.

With regard to updates on forestry, I know there is a lot of concern out there. In the last year, we have seen a significant turnaround in terms of the number of felling licences issued. This time last year, we were very much in a crisis in regard to felling licences, and supply to the sawmills was in difficulty. I am happy to say that is no longer the case. We do not have an issue with supply to the sawmill sector, so that has been improved. We do have an issue with the issuing of afforestation licences, which I accept. The intention this year is to double the number of afforestation licences issued, which is positive. If this legislation is passed, small-scale planting might help that target also.

What is important is to engage with farmers and landowners to make planting of trees something they want to do. There is a fear and perhaps people are dissuaded from planting trees, so we need to reverse that. We need farmers, landowners and the wider sector to engage and to promote the positive benefits of forestry for all of its functions, not only for timber production and rural economies, but also for all of the issues we understand in terms of carbon sequestration and storage, biodiversity and amenity values. Most people live relatively close to a wooded area which they certainly enjoy.

I thank all of the Senators. I hope I have answered all of the questions but, if not, Senators can contact me afterwards. I hope we can agree, as we seem to, that the prohibition of fur farming and the provision of enabling legislation to facilitate native tree planting is a positive step forward. The Bill will result in positive change to our society. I look forward to subsequent engagements on the Bill with Senators. I commend the Bill to the House.

Photo of Róisín GarveyRóisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That was a nice wrap-up of everybody's comments. I thank the Minister of State for her feedback.

Question put and agreed to.

Photo of Róisín GarveyRóisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Photo of Garret AhearnGarret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Next Tuesday.

Photo of Róisín GarveyRóisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 15 February 2022.

Photo of Róisín GarveyRóisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to sit again?

Photo of Garret AhearnGarret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.

Cuireadh an Seanad ar athló ag 6.25 p.m. go dtí 10.30 a.m., Dé Céadaoin, an 9 Feabhra 2022.

The Seanad adjourned at 6.25 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 9 February 2022.