Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Feb 2022

Vol. 1017 No. 3

Animal Health and Welfare and Forestry (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2021: Report and Final Stages

Deputy Matt Carthy

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 15, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:

“(i) shall on an annual basis lay a report before Dáil Éireann on the level of afforestation per Local Electoral Area, the level of which is broadleaf, and as to how this aligns with government policy and objectives,”

I thank the Minister for being here. I will take a moment to reflect on the situation in which we found ourselves in that we were dealing with legislation on the banning of mink fur farms and at a late stage, on Committee Stage, what was essentially entirely new legislation on tree-planting and forestry schemes was added. Both elements of this legislation, in principle, are absolutely supported by Sinn Féin, as the Minister knows, but there were peculiarities. With regard to the issue of small-scale afforestation schemes, in particular, which we had long called for, it would have been beneficial had we had the benefit of a longer lead-in time to discuss and outline the nature of how that would look.

With regard to the first aspect of the scheme, I acknowledge my disappointment we were not a position to find the route by which we could provide greater compensation supports to those workers who will lose their jobs on the farms affected. There have been discussions and many debates and we have articulated them well with regard to the compensation for farm owners, but especially with regard to the workers. This is a unique situation in that this House, tonight, will vote to essentially close down a sector and put people out of work. It is highly unusual for that to happen. It is not fair in those instances that the workers who are affected will simply get their statutory redundancy and no more, nor is it fair to simply say the companies can look after them, because the companies are essentially going out of business, as well.

Report Stage is the first time these amendments have been tabled and I hope the Minister will come at them in a positive light. The first amendment relates to the broader issue of afforestation. I have often said that a forest should be a place beside which people wanted to live. A forest should be something communities embrace and that enhances communities.

In too many areas, that has not been the experience, because of blanket planting of one species, Sitka spruce, with little consultation with local communities and the investors often responsible for that not being from the local area and being motivated primarily by profit. We want to see the level of afforestation throughout this country increase, which the Minister knows, but we also want to see an increase in the level of community support and a fair balance in afforestation.

This amendment is simply asking that the Dáil would resolve that the Minister of the day bring an annual report before the House detailing the levels of afforestation. This would not be just at a State-wide level but at a local electoral area, LEA, level and would outline the percentage of that afforestation that is native broadleaf and provide a report on how that aligns with Government policies and objectives. This is a very progressive amendment. It does not add any additional costs. It simply ensures this Dáil is kept apprised of what is a crucial element of not only our rural development policy but also fulfilling our climate action obligations. Crucially, it will allow different local communities to have first-hand knowledge of how their areas are being affected with respect not only to the level of afforestation taking place but also its type.

As I put forward this amendment, it would be remiss of me to not talk about the experiences that have been relayed to us by communities, especially those in Leitrim. There is a very particular issue in that county whereby rather than a forest being something people want to live beside, afforestation has become something that epitomises a negative experience. We must learn from that and from the stories we are being told by the people in those communities. There are parts of other counties where similar stories are being told. Now 19% of County Leitrim is covered in forestry and 13% of it by one type of tree, namely, Sitka spruce. Clearly we do not have a balance and the balance is not right yet in terms of the level and location of afforestation. This amendment is asking the Minister to do nothing other than bring a report before this House. However, it would send a very strong and progressive signal on the Minister's part if he were to adopt that. It would allow us to ensure we have a proper and continuous audit of our forestry stock so we can look to dramatically increase afforestation across the country in the coming years but also that we do so in a balanced way that is beneficial to all communities.

Deputy Holly Cairns

I will not speak for too long on this. I welcome the Bill, especially the mechanism to allow for and encourage small-scale forestry planting on farms and other land. This is the type of practical intervention needed to help local afforestation with native broadleaf species. The right type of planting has multiple benefits that range from improving carbon sequestration to improving biodiversity and air quality. We need more measures like this to help farmers and landowners to increase our levels of native broadleaf trees.

The first amendment is in the names of Deputies Martin Browne, Carthy and Mac Lochlainn. It provides for the annual reporting on the afforestation rates in the legislation. It is important to understand the impact of the Bill to see how it is going in order to ensure the intent results in increased levels of tree-planting on a local scale. Agriculture organisations have highlighted the need for more incentives to assist farmers in planting trees, while the Mackinnon report mentions delays, uncertainties and perceptions of excessive bureaucracy as disincentives for farmers. It cannot just be a matter of allowing small-scale planting, providing grants and then saying the Department's job is done. There needs to be accountability and transparency around the effectiveness of these measures.

As I said, a mechanism to allow for and encourage small-scale forestry is really welcome. We need more afforestation, especially given our COP26 commitments, but there must be more than just this type of legislation. It cannot just be piecemeal. On Monday I met a group that is trying to prevent the sale of Coillte-owned forestry. When everyone is in favour of legislation of this kind and trying to work on afforestation, it is confusing and ridiculous that we are not keeping land with old and native species in State ownership. Instead, it is being sold to a private owner. We are going backwards while we are going forwards and we must take an overall approach.

On a final point, I welcome the Bill's other purpose of phasing out fur farming and prohibiting the raising of animals for the purpose of using their skin for fur. This is a practice most people strongly oppose and the Bill allows for those affected to be compensated in moving to other methods of farming. That is a just transition and is very welcome. I hope we see more of that from the Minister's Department.

Deputy Sean Sherlock

I will be brief. Firstly, I support the amendment. It is a laudable one and worthy of support. Certainly, the Labour Party seeks to speak in support of the amendment.

When the climate action Bill was before us we sought to put forward amendments to provide for specific sectoral targets for afforestation. The Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications refused to accept those amendments. It was disappointing to say the least. We thought it would have been quite an obvious thing for the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, to take on board given the pronouncements from that part of Government on the desire to ensure we reach afforestation targets throughout the State. I welcome, therefore, this approach by Sinn Féin which merely asks the Minister to lay a report before Dáil Éireann on the level of afforestation per LEA. It is a reasonable amendment.

When you look at the forestry licensing dashboard, which has become the tool we all use for information on the number of afforestation licences and felling licences issued, we can clearly see that while there was an increase in September, October and November, there was a reduction of December. Obviously, January's figures have yet to be published. It seems to me that when you parse the afforestation licences that have been granted, small farmers or private landowners - mainly farmers - received about 26 felling licences. The vast bulk of them are going to Coillte. It received almost double that amount, at 51 licences and that is a constant trend. What I am asking the Minister to do, in supporting this amendment, is to use his good offices to start ensuring that where planting licences, or even felling licences - as there is a natural rate of felling as well - are being applied for, that he remove the impediments to that. There are still too many. I am finding that where felling licences are being applied, smaller farmers who own tracts of forestry are feeling an inordinate amount of stress and strain in respect of the processes they must go through and the hoops they must jump. They are not rich people. They are people who planted in good faith. They are people who sought to look to the future. They are people who want to grow trees again and reapply for afforestation licences. However, the system still has not worked through the issues that have been so well highlighted by the agriculture committee under the chairmanship of Deputy Cahill. We are not seeing enough of a seismic shift to reach those afforestation targets the Government itself has set.

This amendment is a very sensible one. If the Minister could meet its proposers on this and support the amendment it would give us a greater degree of transparency and move towards the setting of the clearer targets that are badly needed if we are to meet our sequestration goals, carbon reduction goals and all the self-evident goals I need not explain. There is a real willingness and desire now by forestry owners to plant but there is still too much of a weighting against them in terms of the bureaucracy and the technocratic mechanisms that are in place and it is preventing that from happening. If they can be worked through it would assist the process greatly.

Deputy Martin Browne

We have had meetings and meetings about this. There was just nothing at the committee meeting regarding the amendments. No matter what the Opposition put through that evening it was not going to be accepted. I ask the Minister to listen to Deputies Sherlock and Cairns. They are telling the Minister, as are the foresters, that this kind of amendment will only improve the system we are all saying has failed at this stage.

Since becoming a member of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, I have had ongoing discussions with forestry workers about their individual situations. It has become clear to me, and to everybody else, that they have specific issues with the Government's policy, the impact it has having on them and the level of communication that filters down to them from the Department and the forestry service. Some of them will tell you that what is coming down is nil. The inclusion of forestry-related aspects in this Bill is a case in point. It took them and all of us by surprise, given that the original purpose of the Bill was to determine the manner in which fur farming was to be phased out. A surprise of this nature demonstrates the perpetual level of dissatisfaction of the sector with the Department and, indeed, some of the distrust that is there. That there is distrust between the Department and foresters has come up at every agricultural meeting at which we discuss forestry. That is the sad situation we are in.

Sinn Féin has included this amendment for the purposes of giving clarity to local foresters on how they are faring in terms of the national plan. It will make it plain whether the target set for afforestation is realistic for them, given the dysfunctionality of the forestry services and the licensing system. We met the Minister earlier. I will take him at his word when he said it is improving, but to try to convince those that have planted trees that this system is working is next to impossible. That is coming across on a daily basis. This amendment would also result in what we hope would be an increased level of Government accountability to local foresters who have felt their concerns have been overlooked in the quest to reach 8,000 ha per year. I must note that target will be missed again this year. I do not care what is said because going by the figures for the month of January, what we have seen all along will be repeated.

We are aiming for more discussion and debate in the House regarding the supports that are available to foresters, whether those supports are actually serving the purpose the Government maintains they are there for and whether the foresters feel the same. For too long, there has been a lack of oversight of the issues that affect the forestry sector and the supports that are made available to it. The ash dieback, or reconstitution and underplanting scheme, is a case in point. It was widely panned by foresters as not being fit for purpose. The Minister and all of us in the Chamber who are involved in this have gone to see some of these plantations. A key purpose of this House is to have oversight of matters of importance to all sectors of society and in business life in this country. We are seeking to ensure this happens effectively.

Deputy Michael Collins

I will certainly support an amendment if it helps in some way to give more clarity to the forestry sector, especially to those who are supplying and working in it. We have gone through a horrendous year and a half with situations involving people that reach all the way back to the landowner. It is very simple. If people cannot fell their forest, they will not sow it. As previous speakers have said, that is why the targets are so important. I am on the agriculture committee and I do not know how many hours we have spent bringing Department officials before us to try to answer simple questions as to why it cannot meet its targets. It always looked as if, about a week before the meetings with us, the targets would fly up and as soon as the meetings were over they would go down to rock bottom again. It looked like there was an objector at the time who was able to dictate to the nation how and where forests could and could not be felled. It was scandalous to think that a whole nation could have been held to ransom by someone who was just ruthlessly objecting and who did not have an honest reason to do so.

It is a major issue that we are not meeting our targets, which we have discussed over and over again at committee level. It does not look like it will rectify itself this year. It did not in 2021. GP Wood in west Cork is one of the biggest timber manufacturers in Ireland. I have spoken and met with its owners on several occasions because they had a very serious concern for their business in that they would be importing timber instead of being able to have their own timber in this country. There is plenty of it this year, if common sense was applied.

This amendment will in some way ease the pressure on those who work in forestry farming so they are at least clearly able to sow and fell forests. That is the way and the clear channel by which people get into forestry farming. We need to encourage more and more people to do so. Unfortunately, the situation for the past year and a half has been so bad that we discourage people from doing that, which is shocking. We as an agricultural committee and as a nation need to turn around this whole very dour and bad situation into a positive one where we see clear planting of forestry in the time ahead. That means we would at least be able to meet our targets.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

I am glad to get the opportunity to speak. I will vote for anything that will help the forestry sector, whether it is felling licences, planning licences or the building of roads. No farmer has any problem with planting small plantations of broadleaf. Farmers did not have to be told by the Green Party, or by anyone else for that matter, to do so. That has been happening over the years in corners of fields, haggards, around houses for shelter and different places. It has been done over the ages.

Confidence in the forestry sector is totally and absolutely gone. People hear about the problems with the felling licences. Some people are getting felling licences, and I have no problem with that, but it should be fair across the board. The private foresters should be entitled to get their fair share of felling licences; that is not happening. In other countries, when someone plants a forest or plantation, the presumption is that it will be cut down when it is mature, when it is the right time and when it will make some financial sense to the owner. That is not being allowed to happen. I have heard of several cases where forestry was to be the source of funding to put a youngster through college. That has been lost. In another case, funding from forestry was to be used to make the house of a person who uses a wheelchair more accessible, with a new bathroom and improvements to the heating and other areas. That is not happening. It appears to me the green agenda is to plant no spruce and to fell no spruce. It is, rather, to plant broadleafs and forget about spruce altogether. That is the way it seems to me.

The Minister has no idea of the frustration that even contractors are enduring at present.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should speak to the amendment. He has time but it is for the amendment.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

One issue is tied into the other. I have almost said what I want to say. I will again say to the Minister that most confidence in the forestry sector has gone and what is left is evaporating as the days go by.

We have gone from 2018 to 2019, 2020 and 2021 and here we are in 2022. We are talking about nearly five years and we are still in trouble with it.

Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Deputy Charlie McConalogue)

I thank Members for their opening contributions on the first amendment to the Bill tonight. The purpose of this 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. These amendments will confer a regulation making power on the Minister to make regulations to facilitate small-scale planting of native tree areas without the need to first obtain an afforestation licence. This amendment is just one of a number of measures that will assist the State successfully transition to a low-carbon and environmentally sustainable economy.

This Bill has progressed through Committee Stage and we are now dealing with Report Stage. No amendments were received regarding the provisions of this legislation to prohibit fur farming in Ireland, which are sections 1 to 8. Three amendments were received relating to section 9 provisions of this legislation amending the Forestry Act 2014. I recognise the broad support of Deputies for both aspects of the Bill - the prohibition of fur farming and the very sensible step to introduce the capacity to be able to plant 1 ha of native trees without the need to apply for a licence - obviously with reasonable terms and conditions applying to that. We will debate the three amendments put forward by Sinn Féin but it is important to note the overall agreement and sense that both initiatives are good in terms of policy direction and are worthy initiatives and move forward strongly in terms of providing capacity to make good headway regarding improving forestry under native trees and the important step of banning fur farming. This was a very legitimate and well-organised industry over many years but without a doubt, is one that has outlived its relevance in modern society in terms of our approach and attitudes to animal welfare standards as times have moved on. Therefore, we are taking this quite unprecedented step to prohibit the industry in the country.

Amendment No. 1 asks that on an annual basis, a report shall be laid before Dáil Éireann on the level of afforestation per local electoral area describing what level of afforestation is broadleaf and as to how this aligns with Government policy and objectives. As things stand, the Department provides very comprehensive forestry statistics. On a weekly basis through the forestry dashboard, information is provided on afforestation, roading and felling. Monthly statistics are also provided on a broader range of statistics that are available on the Department's website. At the end of each year, comprehensive statistical information is provided on a county-by-county basis in the annual forest sector statistics publication. My Department already makes available detailed information at individual plantation level on the composition of the areas being afforested. This information can and has in the past been used to determine the area and species planted at a regional level such as local electoral areas. The requirement to provide these statistics is not statutorily based but has evolved over time to meet the requirements of stakeholders in the forest sector. This allows for changes to be readily made to the information being sought. My preferred approach is to retain this current flexible approach to providing statistics. For these reasons, I do not propose to accept these amendments. I see where the Deputy is coming from but I am pointing out that this can already be done with the statistics provided by the Department. When we are putting primary legislation in place, we must consider the merits of how much detail we go into and how many legal requirements and how much of an administrative straitjacket are required of a Department. The appropriate way to deal with this is the way we currently do it by providing the statistics on a weekly, monthly and yearly basis. It allows information to be sliced and diced in many different ways. Using primary legislation that requires it to be done in a specific way laid before the Dáil would not add anything because the information is already readily available and is very much utilised by the sector. While I see the point behind the amendment, the information is available and can be utilised and it is excessive to put that specificity into primary legislation.

Deputy Matt Carthy

Without rehashing everything that has been said, the reason we want this to be brought before the Dáil on an annual basis is because it will focus minds. This is an issue we really need to get right for all the reasons outlined by the Minister to which this Dáil has agreed. This has implications for a myriad of different policy areas such as land use, rural and regional development and our climate action obligations. We need to get this right. We are also in unanimity about saying that we need to plant trees. We need greater levels of afforestation and to ensure that we do all the things we set out to do.

What we have are lofty targets that are not being met. The programme for Government contains an afforestation target of 8,000 ha per year but we are nowhere near it. About a quarter of this was planted last year. The Minister is bringing forward what is on the face of it a good scheme regarding small-scale afforestation of native broadleaf species but what is missing is that overarching and comprehensive viewpoint. As has been rightly said, the timber industry has specific needs we need to address. Our environmental obligations mean there are specific needs we need to address. A crucial component concerns community needs we need to address. I ask the Minister to reconsider or at the very minimum give a commitment here tonight that the Department will supply the information asked for in this amendment in some official format. If the Minister could go this far and we could be assured that we could get clear and precise detail about the amount and percentage of broadleaf afforestation by local electoral area on an annual basis, it would be a good evening's work.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

There is a lot of fanfare and much hay is being made about this proposal to allow a hectare of native woodland to be planted without needing to get planning permission. Farmers have been planting broadleaf trees in corners of fields and around houses for shelter and continue to do so. Is the Minister telling me that what they were doing was wrong? He is suggesting that they do not have to apply for planning permission. I think they would do this anyway without the Minister telling them. Could they be helped with a grant? Could they get some funding towards this? Everything you do today costs money - plants and work. Is it the Green Party's intention as part of Government to subsidise or help these people to plant broadleaf trees?

If there is not something like that coming down the line, what we are doing in here is wasting time. Farmers and landowners have been planting broadleaf trees since before we were here, going back to the foundation of the State. They were always doing it. They did not have to be told they could do it without planning.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies have time for a two-minute contribution relevant to the amendment at this point. The amendment is specifically about laying a report before the Dáil.

Deputy Sean Sherlock

Specificity is precisely what should be governing primary legislation. This is a specific amendment. It should not be so injurious to the Minister that he should not accept it on the basis that it is overly specific. There is a point to be made here that captures the political zeitgeist. That is about how we take carbon out of society and the economy. One of the ways to do that is through an active afforestation programme. The facts in respect of the dashboard, which is the toolkit we all use, clearly indicate that those targets will not be met. Deputy Carthy has already stated that. We can see it for ourselves. The point of the amendment is that it asks for a level of granularity which is not unreasonable. The Department is a mighty Department in the sense that it has many personnel. It has an ever-growing number of personnel, particularly relating to the processing of afforestation and felling licences. It has many experts now. It would be very easy for the Department to carry out this exercise. I ask the Minister to rethink his position. I fear I am involved in a futile exercise in that regard but I ask that nonetheless.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

Common sense must prevail at all times. One shocking issue that was touched on earlier cannot be ignored in this debate. I am trying to be as specific as I can. The Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, Deputy Eamon Ryan, should be in the Chamber. He should be tied in here for a while to make him listen to some of the contributions. The shocking issue was that the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, Deputy Eamon Ryan, failed to sign the derogation allowing farmers to burn scrub on 1 January. He did not do it on the grounds of protecting the environment. It is going to backfire enormously. It is turning every man, woman and child in rural Ireland-----

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I ask the Deputy to speak to the amendment. It is a specific issue.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

There is a point to what I am trying to say, if I could make it, the same as everybody else.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have stopped everyone on this point. This is a very specific amendment. We are not on Second Stage.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

I would have made my point if the Leas-Cheann Comhairle had let me finish.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I can give the Deputy two seconds.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

I wonder how Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael can stand over that decision. We will take no notice of the Green Party for a while. How do Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael think they can face the farmers? I was grateful when the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine did his tour of the marts. Would he like to go into the marts now and tell the farmers he is supporting the other Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, who failed to sign the derogation he should have signed if he had any bit of common sense at all? The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine is supporting that decision. He cannot say he is not because he is. I would like the Minister to answer that.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae asked about the 1 ha threshold. We are trying to make it as easy and as practical as possible for farmers to be able to plant up to 1 ha without a licence. Under the current legislation, the situation which has been in place for many years now, the threshold is 0.1 ha. Anything over 0.1 ha has required a licence for many years but anything under 0.1 ha has not. We are applying what I think is a common-sense approach in increasing that to 1 ha. That will provide farmers with the capacity to manage their land and plant trees on up to 1 ha of their farms and on different parts of their farms, should they wish. I will certainly be looking at how we can support and incentivise farmers to do that plantation. I already have done that with regard to the CAP programme, both in the eco schemes and the agri-environmental scheme to support that. I will continue to look at that.

Deputy Sherlock referred to the specificity of legislation. The point I am making is that when something is put in primary legislation, it applies this year, next year, in ten years, 30 years, 40 years, 50 years and 60 years. We have regulations in law that go back to a time prior to the foundation of the State. We have to think seriously about what we put in primary legislation because long after we have left, those who come after us will have no interest in the contents of this amendment. Officials and persons paid through the taxpayer will have to sit down, prepare a report and submit it, and nobody will ever look at it. What is important is that we have reporting that is relevant and flexible, and gives everyone the information they wish. Of course, on any annual basis there is the opportunity for any Member of the Dáil to seek to bring attention to that and have it dealt with on the floor of the Dáil or in committee. That is a good way to go. We have done a lot of that over the past year. We will be providing that reporting. I will ensure this type of information is provided, is part of our reporting and is accessible. That is the best way to do it rather than putting it in legislation which could be there for many years. That creates an administrative system and a level of red tape that is excessive.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked about the derogation, a matter I have discussed with the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, in recent days. That derogation will be signed and that adjustment will be in place. We try to take a common-sense approach to everything. We will also look at alternatives for the future and engage on those. The derogation will be in place. We are in government to support farmers in any way we can, through funding and otherwise. We are doing that and a sensible approach is being taken here.

Deputy Matt Carthy

The Minister has said he will provide that information and I welcome that. The reason we put forward this amendment was that we think that information is important. I will take the Minister at his word and I will not press the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 15, line 30, after “grants,” to insert “subject to Dáil approval and”.

This is the most important amendment we have proposed and I hope the Minister will adopt it. We have heard about the broad outline of the scheme that is being brought forward which exempts afforestation of broadleaf trees up to 1 ha. We support that, as the Minister knows. We support that principle. This amendment asks the Minister to bring any scheme arising from this legislation before the Dáil for approval. The reason we are doing that is that forestry policy, as has been already discussed here, has failed utterly in recent years. There has been a systemic failure to deliver on targets that have been set and to ensure that forestry policy does what it should do, which is to deliver for the environment, communities and the economy. As I have mentioned on many occasions in this House, we have managed to come up with a forestry policy that does none of those things. We want that addressed and I hope this scheme will be a small part of addressing it. It will undoubtedly be a small part but it can be a part of all of that. We need to make sure it is.

Quite frankly, this amendment is a matter of confidence. We want to build confidence in this sector because at the moment that confidence is at rock bottom.

There is a pattern that emerges with this type of scheme. The legislation provides for schemes to happen. I can nearly write the playbook. On a Wednesday evening at some point in the future, I will check my Twitter feed or I will see a screenshot of the front page of the Irish Farmers' Journal and it will tell me that the Minister is about to launch a new scheme. That will happen prior to any Member of this House being aware of it. We will get the headline details in the Irish Farmers' Journal or another publication.

Within minutes or hours, we will start getting phone calls from people asking if they will qualify for it, what it will mean or how they will operate and we will have no idea. We will have heard nothing at all about it. There will have been a PR exercise and we will have to wait until the next opportunity for the Oireachtas committee to meet or for parliamentary questions to be answered if it happens between recesses or whatever the case may be. It happens all too often. I am asking in this instance that we democratise this system.

I imagine the Minister has unanimity tonight with regard to this legislation. He will get full support regarding the idea and principle of the scheme. We are asking that he bring the scheme back to this House in order that we can scrutinise it, in the first instance, to make sure there are no unforeseen issues. It happens all the time that schemes are introduced by officials with the very best will in the world, even in collaboration with the Ministers, and then there are difficulties with them. We want to make sure that when the scheme is introduced, there is Dáil scrutiny and that the Dáil approves of it. Then the Minister can have his PR launch and take the credit for delivering what we hope will be an excellent scheme.

This is absolutely fair and critical. It has been sorely missing across too many areas of agriculture where there has not been proper democratic oversight of the detail of schemes that can impact people's livelihoods. When they are got wrong, they can put people out of their livelihoods or cost them substantial amounts of money, whether that be in penalties or whatever the case may be. I believe it is a reasonable amendment. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment in order that we can say this scheme will be a product of the Oireachtas recognising the failures in forestry and collectively coming together, under the Minister's leadership, to address this issue in a progressive and pragmatic way.

Deputy Martin Browne

Deputy Carthy has outlined exactly why it is important that no more of these headlines appear in the Irish Farmers' Journal and so forth. To have trust in the sector out there, there must be trust here in the House. If we are not being informed of what is going on at the start, then the whole scheme or any scheme, whether it is that of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine or of the Department of Health or wherever else, is doomed to fail. Like Deputy Carthy said, we ask that the Minister accepts the amendment. It is good practice if nothing else. It is fair on the sector and fair on people sitting in this Chamber in that they will get a chance to speak on any of these amendments that are coming. I again ask the Minister to consider the amendment.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I thank Deputies Carthy and Browne for the amendment. This is already provided for in section 9(d) of the Bill with the requirement on the Minister to provide, by regulation, for a scheme to facilitate the planting of native tree areas. It is, therefore, provided in the Bill that the Minister would do that by way of regulation. This provides that the legislation to establish a scheme must be consistent with and based on the legislation adopted by the Oireachtas in the primary legislation, which we are considering in this Bill.

Furthermore, in advance of the development of a scheme, the Department will have to undertake a strategic environmental assessment. The strategic environmental assessment directive includes statutory legal requirements for the public to be able to participate in the process at specific stages to ensure there is transparency in the decision-making throughout the strategic environmental assessment process. The consultation process will engage with statutory authorities, outside bodies and the public. Members of the Oireachtas can also participate in this process to shape any future scheme. There is, therefore, much opportunity for engagement to help shape and look at the potential scheme from a number of different aspects, not just for Members of the Oireachtas but also for the wider public. It is very well covered already and, therefore, I do not see it as necessary to do that in terms of primary legislation.

If, for example, we were saying that a scheme such as this would have to be subject to Dáil approval, which basically means it would have to be voted on in the Dáil, then why would we not do the same for the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS, the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, or any scheme a Minister would bring forward, not just in my Department but in any Department? It is overburdening the role of the Oireachtas and primary legislation when it is already being done by other means. We all know the challenge it is to get legislation into the Dáil. We know how long it took even for this legislation to find space and come through. If we were to bring other matters, which can be done in a more collaborative manner that is already provided for with processes in place to do so, then I do not believe it is a proportionate use of either primary legislation or the Dáil's time directly. It is excessive, overly bogged down in red tape and not conducive to productive government.

I absolutely see where the Deputies are coming from. I recognise the importance of collaboration to make sure the scheme is right and the primary legislation we are bringing forward today delivers the results we all want to see, which is more native trees, there are schemes to deliver that and also other subsidiary schemes in terms of incentives and grants and that we drive it on and make use of it.

Putting it in primary legislation would mean that every time we do something like that, in addition to all the other processes such as consultation through the strategic environmental assessment, we would need to have, for example, the capacity for regulation in a statutory instrument. It is unduly excessive to burden it with the red tape and Dáil time that would be involved, as proposed in this amendment. Again, if we were doing it for this, why not for so many other things?

Deputy Matt Carthy

Why not, indeed? If the beef exceptional aid measure, BEAM, scheme, for example, had come before this House for approval, we might not have had the situation where so much money went without being drawn down and then had to be repaid through penalties. It is precisely for those reasons that there is a need for oversight. There is a particular problem in forestry, however. Quite frankly, as I said, across the board, when we talk to environmentalists, the timber industry and communities, they do not trust the Department. I recognise and have gone on record as saying there have been improvements over the past number of months but the erosion of trust has not yet been fully undone.

On this particular issue, without getting into a debate on all the other different schemes - because there are other schemes that I believe warrant Dáil approval - what would this mean in practical terms? If the scheme is a good one and we hope it is, it would be agreed without problems and without debate. The only time it would actually lead to time taken up in the Dáil would be if fundamental problems were identified by any Member of the House. Again, from the starting point with regard to this, it is absolutely legitimate to suggest the scheme would be brought before this House in order that we could all be confident that it will deliver what it sets out to do. I implore the Minister; regulation will not cut it. The difficulty with the regulation is that it is signed off by the Minister in Agriculture House before anybody else - in terms of the elected Members of this House - has seen it. This issue of the afforestation crisis and the importance of forestry in relation to all the things I have outlined is too important for that. This needs to be brought back to this House.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

Again, I understand the point the Deputy made. I believe it is already well provided for in the legislation. As we know, I spent much time at the Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine earlier today. I have spent a lot of time talking about forestry in the agriculture committee previously, as indeed has the Minister of State, Senator Hackett, who has done Trojan work in bringing this Bill forward in terms of drafting this initiative.

With regard to confidence in the forestry sector and in the Department, we have had a very challenging couple of years but we have been working our way very deliberately and progressively out of that. As we know, a court decision on the challenges around licensing in 2019 radically changed the nature of how licences will be processed, particularly the level of ecological assessment required of each application. As a result of that decision, it radically altered the way licences would be considered within the Department and the processes required for that.

That then led to a backlog, which emerged from 2019 onwards. When this Government was formed, the Minister of State, Senator Hackett, and I were faced with a real crisis in the sector whereby there was a significant backlog. We had to recruit significant additional staff and alter processes. The backlog was not just in the primary and initial licensing, but also in appeals. There was a backlog of 1,000 cases in the appeal system. We introduced legislation to deal with that. As for that backlog of 1,000 in the appeals system that was present 14 months ago, there are now ten or 20 cases.

In relation to the backlog for licence applications, we have reduced that over the past year by about 1,400. Today, the figure is approximately 4,700. Previously, it was approximately 6,000. We are bringing it down every week and every month. We will bring it down even more over the course of this year. While it is a difficult situation, we are working our way out of it. Through initiatives such as the 1 ha proposal that we are bringing forward, as well as through the new forestry strategy, we will drive forward to improve afforestation over the next number of years. This will allow us to deliver on our climate targets. Importantly, it will allow this to be an important resource for the country, as well as an income stream for farmers.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I will make a brief comment. The Minister has talked about some of the positive things that have happened. The evidence is that this House has supported him. He mentioned the legislation on forestry appeals. The Opposition collectively agreed to waive pre-legislative scrutiny to ensure the legislation’s speedy passage through the Dáil. I do not believe there is anything to fear from asking for Dáil scrutiny in this instance and it is for that reason that I will be pressing the amendment.

Amendment put:

The Dáil divided: Tá, 54; Níl, 76; Staon, 0.

Tá

• Andrews, Chris.
• Bacik, Ivana.
• Berry, Cathal.
• Brady, John.
• Browne, Martin.
• Buckley, Pat.
• Cairns, Holly.
• Canney, Seán.
• Carthy, Matt.
• Clarke, Sorca.
• Collins, Michael.
• Conway-Walsh, Rose.
• Cronin, Réada.
• Crowe, Seán.
• Cullinane, David.
• Daly, Pa.
• Doherty, Pearse.
• Donnelly, Paul.
• Farrell, Mairéad.
• Fitzpatrick, Peter.
• Funchion, Kathleen.
• Gannon, Gary.
• Gould, Thomas.
• Guirke, Johnny.
• Harkin, Marian.
• Healy-Rae, Danny.
• Healy-Rae, Michael.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kenny, Martin.
• Kerrane, Claire.
• Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
• Mitchell, Denise.
• Munster, Imelda.
• Murphy, Catherine.
• Murphy, Verona.
• Mythen, Johnny.
• Nash, Ged.
• O'Callaghan, Cian.
• O'Donoghue, Richard.
• O'Rourke, Darren.
• Ó Broin, Eoin.
• Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
• Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
• Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
• Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
• Pringle, Thomas.
• Quinlivan, Maurice.
• Ryan, Patricia.
• Shanahan, Matt.
• Sherlock, Sean.
• Shortall, Róisín.
• Stanley, Brian.
• Tully, Pauline.
• Ward, Mark.

Níl

• Brophy, Colm.
• Browne, James.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Burke, Colm.
• Burke, Peter.
• Butler, Mary.
• Byrne, Thomas.
• Cahill, Jackie.
• Calleary, Dara.
• Cannon, Ciarán.
• Carey, Joe.
• Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer.
• Chambers, Jack.
• Collins, Niall.
• Costello, Patrick.
• Coveney, Simon.
• Cowen, Barry.
• Creed, Michael.
• Crowe, Cathal.
• Devlin, Cormac.
• Dillon, Alan.
• Donohoe, Paschal.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• English, Damien.
• Farrell, Alan.
• Feighan, Frankie.
• Flaherty, Joe.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Fleming, Sean.
• Foley, Norma.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Harris, Simon.
• Haughey, Seán.
• Heydon, Martin.
• Higgins, Emer.
• Hourigan, Neasa.
• Humphreys, Heather.
• Kehoe, Paul.
• Lahart, John.
• Lawless, James.
• Leddin, Brian.
• Madigan, Josepha.
• Matthews, Steven.
• McAuliffe, Paul.
• McConalogue, Charlie.
• McGrath, Michael.
• McGuinness, John.
• McHugh, Joe.
• Moynihan, Aindrias.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
• Naughton, Hildegarde.
• Noonan, Malcolm.
• O'Brien, Darragh.
• O'Brien, Joe.
• O'Callaghan, Jim.
• O'Connor, James.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donnell, Kieran.
• O'Donovan, Patrick.
• O'Dowd, Fergus.
• O'Gorman, Roderic.
• O'Sullivan, Christopher.
• O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• Phelan, John Paul.
• Rabbitte, Anne.
• Richmond, Neale.
• Ring, Michael.
• Ryan, Eamon.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Smyth, Niamh.
• Smyth, Ossian.
• Stanton, David.
• Troy, Robert.
• Varadkar, Leo.

Staon

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Pádraig Mac Lochlainn and Matt Carthy; Níl, Deputies Jack Chambers and Brendan Griffin.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 16, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:

“(i) existing levels of afforestation adjacent to domestic dwellings,”.

I will not push this amendment to a full vote but the Minister might accept it. Essentially, we are proposing that one of the criteria to be taken into account before the Minister approves a scheme would be the existing levels of afforestation adjacent to domestic dwellings. The amendment does not seek to constrain the Government at all in designing this scheme; it simply asks that when people seek to avail of it, due consideration be given to existing afforestation in the same manner as public safety, for example, which is already included in the Bill.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I do not propose to accept this amendment. The reason, as with the previous amendment, is that we have to decide what is proportionate and sensible to put into primary legislation, as opposed to dealing with it through policy and regulation. For example, the particular proposal the Deputy is putting forward will be accommodated fully in the scheme and the regulations. The amendment does not mention archaeological sites in the area and how they would interact with the scheme, or water courses, biodiversity, habitats and the wider environment. If we start being prescriptive in primary legislation, where do we draw the line? That is the key question. It is therefore important that we deal with the appropriate things in regulation and policy as opposed to primary legislation. That is why I do not believe it is appropriate to put this in the Bill today.

Deputy Matt Carthy

The areas the Minister referred to are addressed in the Bill through the environmental assessments the Department will be obliged to take into account. We are asking that the scheme take into consideration the existing levels of afforestation and, to go back to our earlier conversation, the types of afforestation involved. We want a forestry policy that delivers for the environment and the economy but also, as I have said countless times, delivers for the communities that live close by. Our amendment is eminently sensible in that regard.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

Deputy Carthy and I are at one with regard to the importance of ensuring that this is accommodated in the scheme that is put in place. As with those other points I mentioned, this issue will be accommodated through policy and guidelines so it is not necessary or appropriate to put it into the primary legislation. I assure the Deputy that such matters will be fully taken into account in the positive schemes that will be brought forward as a result of this legislation, which has universal support in the House. However, it is not proportionate or appropriate to include it in the primary legislation.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Bill received for final consideration and passed.