Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses. Like everybody else, I would be concerned if Ministers would not meet relevant bodies. The Glennons are based in my constituency where I think they have access to anybody they like in terms of making their case. I hope Ministers will meet people because it is important to have interaction where people are bringing forward proposals and that the people, who are stakeholders, get an opportunity to convey their viewpoint. There may well be different viewpoints but distilled wisdom can bring forward something which is better from all parties concerned. I hope that will be the way forward.
Regulation is important in the overall context but one of the problems in Ireland is that we suffer from a deficit of regulation. There is never a half way measure in Ireland in terms of regulation. We suffocate and have a surplus of regulation. Trying to achieve a balance is important. From a legal perspective, I am absolutely shocked the Statute of Limitations could be extended to 20 years. There are many cases where it should be longer than, for example, three years in personal injuries cases or six years in civil contract cases. People must prove special circumstances in very harrowing cases in order to get the Statute of Limitations extended. To write 20 years into a Bill defies logic and belief. I certainly concur that it is nonsensical. A simple contract is six years. The Statute of Limitations can be extended, for example, in cases of fraud and a court can find on that basis. This is symptomatic of an over-bureaucratic input into something which requires regulation. There must be rules and regulations.
I have always had a big issue with forestry companies and I have had a go at Coillte over the years. Very often people live on rural roads where there is forestry land and big juggernauts arrive to take out the forestry and the timber cuttings and thinnings. Much damage is done to those roads that many people have to use. Even from that perspective, I would like some regulation in that there would be a way to ensure local authorities get some recompense to repair those roads because people are living on them. Going back over the years, including the years I spent on the local authority, I have always held that point of view, which I will not change. As people know, I do not change.
It is important there is a co-ordinated policy. What I have garnered from the IFFPA is that there is a kind of an ad hocor stop-go situation in terms of the overall development of forestry. It has advocated the sort of one-stop-shop forestry development agency which emanated from the forestry policy review group. A proper forestry development authority with some teeth, some oversight, some coherence and underpinned by a proper strategy with proper funding bringing together all the relevant stakeholders has much merit. From listening to Mr. Pat Glennon and Mr. Mike Glennon over the years, I know there is a significant deficit in terms of the various requirements and so on and that is why they are concerned about the proposed Coillte and Bord na Móna merger and the impact that would have in terms of supply. That is a big problem, apart from all the ancillary issues.
How much of a deficit is there in terms of the requirements? In other words, how much is imported to meet the current situation? How much would that be accentuated by the proposed merger where much of the wood would be used to supplement the biomass requirements that would emerge as a result of any huge bioenergy division?
What success has the IFFPA achieved in terms of product innovation, market innovation and so on? That is important in terms of generating jobs. I subscribe to the idea that the IFFPA is important in rural areas, coming from a very rural area myself. I know the importance of areas like Baronstown, Ballycorkey and places like that in the context of rural jobs. What concerns me is that the programme for Government sets out an objective of 14,700 ha. Over the past number of years, as far as I can make out, only about 45% of the target has been achieved. Where are we going if we have set out a target of 14,700 ha? I read some of the IFFPA's observations before Christmas that it is insufficient. I think some have said it should be more than 20,000 ha. I hope I have not misquoted them but they can correct the record. If it is 20,000 ha and we are only planting 8,000 ha, we are not in the game at all. Is that not the huge deficit in terms of the basic raw material - the supply necessary to achieve all the various hardwoods? There has been some successes there. I know Mr. Pat Glennon has had successes in terms of product innovation. Masonite has also had successes. Where does that leave it?
From an environmental perspective, Irish forests have played a significant role in terms carbon savings and in achieving targets set out in the Kyoto Protocol. We know the importance of forestry as a carbon sink and in dealing with the greenhouse gas emissions. We have targets to meet in that regard and in terms of employment and innovation but we are still in a very scattered state. In order to achieve all those targets, the sooner we get around to having a proper forestry development authority which focused on meeting those targets and is resourced, the better.
Again, I welcome the witnesses. I know the positive role they play and I will certainly do anything I can to advance the situation. I will make certain views known in terms of meetings which should take place to ensure there is coherence. People working together in a co-ordinated way can achieve much. There is much to be achieved, in particular in rural areas, if we get this right.