Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

My colleagues, Deputies Martin Ferris and Seán Crowe, have spoken previously on the Bill and have referred to many of the important aspects of the proposed legislation and to the general policy relating to forestry. I echo their welcome of the news that there is to be no sale of Coillte or its forestry assets. That is in the best interests of the forestry sector. Maintaining Coillte lands and forestry in State ownership provides the potential for the development of these assets in the public interest.

Perhaps the decision with regard to Coillte has set a precedent. I was pleased to welcome today the decision by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, to reject the offers received to date for Bord Gáis Energy. I hope the Government will forget about any sale and proceed with the development of the energy sector in public ownership and in the best interests of citizens. At the committee meeting today I offered to work actively with the Minister and the Department in that venture.

Last week I was pleased to meet representatives of Coillte and the Irish Wind Energy Association to discuss the future use of Coillte lands. It is clear the people in Coillte envisage the company as a significant operator in the wind energy area. That Coillte owns such a large proportion of the land area suitable for wind farms means this makes sense. I see merit in the proposal from the wind energy sector that the Bill be amended in Part 2, section 5 to refer specifically and directly to the encouragement of wind energy.

There are many issues relating to the use of forestry land for the purpose of developing wind energy. Some parts of the forestry estate are eminently suitable, especially where there are no trees or where the trees are of low value in terms of timber quality. At the same time, we have no wish for a situation resulting in the large-scale clearance of trees to build wind farms. Areas harvested ought to be replaced by replanted forests of the same area. Nor is it desirable that other uses of forests, including commercial harvesting, should be set aside in favour of wind farms. Striking the balance is of the utmost importance and can be furthered through the Bill, if necessary, by incorporating amendments reflecting the different interests involved.

Another issue regarding the possible expansion of Coillte's role in promoting wind energy is whether the company should retain a direct interest in wind farms or lease land to be used by private companies for that purpose. Where this has occurred, it has caused public disquiet because it is believed the process of leasing such lands and the people to whom it has been leased is not transparent. There is a suspicion that the ownership of proposed wind farms is not apparent when the projects are approved. It is important also that a caveat would be included in the legislation and title documents to the effect that the owners of Coillte lands are expressly forbidden to lease, sublet or sell land for activities connected with hydraulic fracturing.

Renewable energy, of which wind power will continue to be a significant contributor in this country, is highly desirable. It is all the more important, therefore, that local communities and individuals living in the vicinity of wind farms are not made hostile to the sector through the perception or the reality that the sector appears to take little cognisance of local concerns. This raises the issue of choices and options having been decided before consultation begins, an issue to which I referred at the committee meeting today. Addressing the concerns communities and bringing them along will be crucial if publicly owned lands are to be used and if Coillte, as a publicly owned body, is to be directly involved in the development of wind power. The preference of my party is that if public lands are used, the wind farms should either be leased to local community projects with the possibility of directly meeting local energy requirements or maintained in the ownership of Coillte and, therefore, of the public. Significant investment costs would arise in this case but, as I understand it, Coillte is well-financed and in a sound position.

Coillte lands are central to the current plans to develop extensive wind farms in the midlands, currently leased to Element Power. The energy generated is to be exported to Britain, some 3,000 MW by 2018. When one considers that the current capacity in the State is a little over two thirds of the proposed export, one can envisage the scale of what is proposed. While I agree that energy exports could realise a significant economic benefit to the country in future, especially when we begin to develop tidal and wave generation fully, I am concerned that such a large-scale project has been agreed prior to the State achieving its own targets and becoming self-sufficient in electricity generation from wind power. I suggest that until these targets are attained, we should not consider energy exports. We need a cohesive comprehensive strategy covering energy, natural resources and, crucially, landscape management, irrespective of whether the energy is for use at home or abroad.

We are considering the Bill with regard to the use of Coillte lands and the ownership of the energy to be generated with a view to determining whether these issues might be addressed in a certain way. Our aim is to ensure that if the forestry lands are used for renewable energy projects, it would be as part of a co-ordinated State strategy to push ahead with the achievement of electricity self-sufficiency and to balance the use of the public forestry with other commercial and public environmental issues.

There are concerns regarding felling licences and the thinning of forests and a belief among some stakeholders that extra delays and bureaucracy are being proposed. Again, these issues can be addressed through amendments. Another issue which might be addressed is the question of replanting. As the Bill stands, the Minister has discretion regarding replanting. Others argue that where an area of public forestry is harvested, it ought to be mandatory for a similar area to be replanted. This would apply to the commercial use of forestry for timber but it would also be relevant in situations where wind farms are installed on forestry lands.

I have received representations from constituents regarding the fact that a townland is currently 80% forestry but is proposed to be totally planted, that is, 100% forested, a change which would have an impact on the area. No consultation or planning occurred in that case. A local farmer in the same area was refused a loan to expand his farming operation but was offered a loan to plant trees. I realise this does not come under the legislation but it is something that should be considered. It is wrong to have inducements to plant trees in areas where it might be perfectly possible to carry out a decent agriculture industry.

I recognise the need to update the legislation governing forestry but I believe there are aspects of the use of the public forestry, including those to which I have referred, which are not fully, explicitly or sufficiently addressed in the proposed legislation. I hope these issues can be addressed through various amendments as the Bill proceeds, and I hope the Minister will take on board some of the issues involved.

When the Gas Regulation Bill was being debated in the Dáil today, an important meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport and Communications was taking place. The Minister had to rush from that meeting to address the Dáil on the Gas Regulation Bill.

It makes no sense that a committee meeting would be scheduled for the same time as an important debate in the Dáil. Important debates were scheduled both in the committee rooms and in the Chamber and I for one cannot be in two places at one time. Surely, it is not beyond the planners and diary managers in this place to ensure that if a committee meeting is scheduled in respect of communications, energy and natural resources, the debate on the Bill would be held in the Dáil Chamber at a different time, thereby avoiding conflicts. This made no sense.

See this speech in context