Michael Fitzmaurice warns BIS change will 'open the gate'
Michael Fitzmaurice challenged recent forestry scheme changes, arguing that BIS eligibility revisions effectively allow non-farm entities to qualify for 20-year payments. He raised urgent concerns about corporate land purchases, delayed setback legislation around power lines, and the impact on farmers and planting timelines.
Michael Fitzmaurice set out his central objection: by tying 20-year payments to having passed the active farmer check and receiving a BIS premium, the scheme can be accessed by entities that are not traditional farmers. He warned this creates a risk that corporations or outsiders will buy land beside farmers and displace them in the interest of forestry.
He also pressed officials on the slow rollout of new setback distance legislation for forestry near ESB power lines. With legislation delayed, Fitzmaurice argued this creates situations where trees planted now may have to be removed within months, and he asked whether interim derogations or clearer licensing guidance could be used to prevent wasted planting.
On planting figures he noted the season has been very wet and challenging. Officials reported licences issued and planted hectares are close to last year but warned of a tight planting window ahead. Fitzmaurice highlighted the pressure on nurseries, registered foresters and landowners to act quickly while legislation and safety negotiations continue.
The exchange describes ongoing engagement between the department, DECC, ESB and forestry representatives. Fitzmaurice stressed the need for faster legislative clarity and tighter controls on how BIS and active farmer checks are applied to protect family and young farmers from speculative land purchases.
Key concern: BIS and eligibility
Michael Fitzmaurice set out his central objection: by tying 20-year payments to having passed the active farmer check and receiving a BIS premium, the scheme can be accessed by entities that are not traditional farmers. He warned this creates a risk that corporations or outsiders will buy land beside farmers and displace them in the interest of forestry.
Setback distances and safety risk
He also pressed officials on the slow rollout of new setback distance legislation for forestry near ESB power lines. With legislation delayed, Fitzmaurice argued this creates situations where trees planted now may have to be removed within months, and he asked whether interim derogations or clearer licensing guidance could be used to prevent wasted planting.
Planting progress and practical pressures
On planting figures he noted the season has been very wet and challenging. Officials reported licences issued and planted hectares are close to last year but warned of a tight planting window ahead. Fitzmaurice highlighted the pressure on nurseries, registered foresters and landowners to act quickly while legislation and safety negotiations continue.
Process and engagement
The exchange describes ongoing engagement between the department, DECC, ESB and forestry representatives. Fitzmaurice stressed the need for faster legislative clarity and tighter controls on how BIS and active farmer checks are applied to protect family and young farmers from speculative land purchases.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Other speeches
Michael Fitzmaurice: Habitats Directive is blocking projects
Michael Fitzmaurice demands ESB action and 30m tree clearance
Michael Fitzmaurice questions readiness of 18 AD plants
Michael Fitzmaurice Questions Funding and Grass Use for AD Plants
Michael Fitzmaurice warns entitlements could vanish under per-ha plan
Michael Fitzmaurice warns Mercosur deal risks Irish farmers
Tego samego dnia All speeches from this day →
Roderic O'Gorman
Roderic O'Gorman: The Energy Crisis Is The Climate Crisis
Rose Conway-Walsh
Rose Conway-Walsh: Presses Progress Ireland on Donor Transparency
Victor Boyhan
Victor Boyhan demands transparency on public land planting
Brian Stanley
Brian Stanley: County Laois Ambulance Crisis - Demand Rapid Response
Peter 'Chap' Cleere
Peter 'Chap' Cleere: Limits on Vaping to Protect Youth
Richard Boyd Barrett
Richard Boyd Barrett: Israel and US 'Rained Down Death and Destruction'
Transcript
If I'm a corporate, or if I'm a company, and I put in a BIS application which I'm entitled to do, can I get the 20 years now? So if any entity meets the criteria of an active farmer, check under the BIS and receive one year of BIS, on that basis then they will be eligible for the 20 years. Is there not a fear that it's opening the gate? What you've done basically in the stroke of a barrel is that you've opened the gate to guys that will come in and buy land beside farmers right around this country to blow them out in the interest of forestry. And that's facts. Look, you can portray it that way. I'm not portraying, I'm portraying reality. So that, in terms of what we're seeing, and in terms of what we're trying to do, and what was coming through the public consultation, so these are the registered foresters who are dealing with all the parties that you're mentioning, whether they're corporate entities or whether they're farmers or whether they're private landowners who are neither a corporate entity or a farmer. The biggest block that they were saying was those parties who were minded to plant, in particular those young farmers, in particular those who had inherited land, who were, I would say, being hardest hit. So in terms of a risk-reward and a balanced approach to this, that's where it was coming from. If I was a company before this that hadn't a herd number, wasn't it only farmers that could draw the grounds up to now? Isn't that correct? Sorry, Deputy, if you were a corporate entity... If you hadn't a herd number, could you draw the grounds before now? Of course, but you wouldn't get the 20 years, you'd get 15 years. But before that, before this scheme of 15 and 20 years, could you always get them if you were... Sorry, in the previous programme, 2014-2020, any party who planted, irrespective of who they were, got 15 years, whether they were a farmer, non-farmer... So the 20 years is applicable now to all, providing you have a herd number and a BIS payment put in, is that it? You need to have, whatever the herd number, you need to pass the active farmer check and then have received at least one BIS premium in advance of planting. When, and I've spoken to some of you before about this, when is the legislation going to be ready? At the moment, in forestry that has been cut and you have to replant inside two years, there are people putting in trees that there's power lines near, that new legislation is going to change it to the 50 metres or 55 metres where there's three phase. And there's people putting in trees now that need to be rooted out in six months, eight months, nine months. Can there not be something done within your department that anywhere that's near trees, a line be drawn in the sand at the moment of the setback distances because of the slowness, and it's not your fault, I'm not saying that you're just doing it, the slowness of legislation coming in for the setback distances to be done? Yeah, thanks Deputy. It's a challenging one, I suppose, in terms of we have the criteria in which we issue licences and reforestation licences, and that's on the basis of the agreement between ESB and the IFA, and so we incorporate that into our licensing process. And as we know at the moment, the ESB are engaging bilaterally with landowners to come to a voluntary arrangement with them to widen their corridors in the absence of the legislation and take that approach. Yeah, it'll be very challenging to do that. I understand in this year perhaps... Basically, to put it simple, the farmer has to plan now on the year criteria, which is there, but then there's legislation we know coming in a few months, so you'll put in a tree to take out a tree in six months or seven months. It seems no common sense or a bit of giant up thinking that there'd be a derogation issued or something like that for the time being. The biggest implications are probably for those sites where they're looking to widen the corridors, to be honest. That's where the biggest impact would be. We're obviously working very closely with our colleagues over in DECC who hold the pen on the ESB Act. I understand it's prioritised for the summer schedule, so they'll be discussing that. I know that they're engaged with us, they're engaged with the forestry representatives as well, and obviously the ESB are actively involved in that. It's in everyone's interest to have this sorted as quick as possible. We're actively involved in that. Just as a matter of fact, I didn't see it the last week or two. How is the planting going? I know that you said there's 4,500 hectares of license issued. How is the planting going this year compared with last year? As you know, it's been an extremely wet year. It's been challenging. We've been speaking to some of the nurseries and the farm orgs in the last few days and the registered foresters. As of today, we've issued 148 licenses and we've received 112. I'll come to the second in terms of afforestation, in terms of lands planted so far is 361 hectares. What had you done this time last year? In terms of this time last year, February, March, April, where are we? 378 and we're 361. It's neck and neck. It's neck and neck and it's dry now and from talking to the nurseries, they would say that it was an extremely slow January, February and land is still drying out, so there's going to be a big rush in terms of planting now in that tight window now. How much land do you envisage you'll get from the state to plant? Sorry, I don't want to touch on that. Thanks very much. Again, we're averaging about 18 hectares per site, so again, if we've targeted about 82 organizations so far, we're trying to expand that quite significantly. Will any of them be where there's housing that aren't needed? No, we're having detailed conversations with those organizations and we're looking at land that has the potential for afforestation, but then if it's already allocated for other purposes, then obviously we're not going to proceed with that. That's up to the state organization's choice. Thanks very much. Thank you.