Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will address my first point to Mr. Murphy. There is no talk at all about the establishment grant, although Mr. Murphy referred to €20 million being paid out. At the moment, €800 per acre is given twice in an establishment grant. Is that correct? I know Coillte has 12,000 ha involved in the partnerships.

There has been talk that all of this money was paid out. All the private companies at the moment that offer to plant trees and manage them for farmers for "X" amount of years do not do such work for the love of the farmer. There is "X" amount to be earned from such work. If Mr. Murphy from Coillte is honest with the committee here, what is left over in the margin would go a long way to paying the €20 million that he has said Coillte is out of pocket. Let us remember that €800 is paid per acre. We know how much it costs to carry out forestry mounding, fencing, and buying and planting the trees, which anyone can see. Coillte has put forward the idea that it has paid the money to farmers ahead of getting any money back. If one calculates the figures honestly one discovers that the establishment grant will leave enough room and then one adds the number of acres mentioned and one will be financially okay. In my opinion there is no risk involved in that part of the scheme.

Coillte has mentioned how much it pays out each year and we know there are 630 partnership contracts with Coillte. I have calculated that the scheme will involve €800,000 per year or an average payment of between €1,100 and €1,200. Is that fair to say? Mr. Murphy has said that from 1993 to now Coillte paid out €20.3 million but subsequently that figure was reduced to €17 million. I calculated my figures using the first figure of €20.3 million. If one divides that sum by 23 or 24 years and the number of participants then the average total amount paid each year is between €800,000 and €900,000. Is that correct?

Farmers need to know the following in terms of thinnings. If maintenance is not done properly, and in ten, 12 or 15 years an inspector from the Department discovers that trees have not grown will Coillte take full responsibility if any farmer loses his or her grant? My question is fairly straightforward.

There are grants for creating access roads thus enabling lorries with timber forwarders and timber harvesters to access the areas of forest. I have been made aware that Coillte has said that it will not provide such grants for the simple reason that the bonds sought by the council have left the project unworkable. Is that correct?

I have considered the case study provided for between 35 and 40 ha along with the price of land at the moment and have realised that a farmer would be awful foolish to go into a partnership. I have calculated that a farmer would receive between €580,000 and €600,000 from the scheme but he or she will receive €5,000 an acre at present if land is sold. If a farmer sold 100 acres or 48 hectares at €5,000 an acre he or she would earn between €5.2 million or €5.3 million. Is it, therefore, worthwhile to invest in a partnership with the current price of land?

Earlier Mr. Stanley mentioned how Coillte markets its products. In Ireland there are only three or four customers for such products and we talked about them on the previous occasion. A farmer, Coillte or anybody can sell their product to the sawmills owned by Mr. Fahy, Murray Timber Group or Glennon Brothers. One does not need a magic wand to sell. Mr. Stanley also talked about traceability. That does not add to the value of the timber, in my opinion.

I worry about the following. Before Coillte thins forestry does it consult the farmer? Does it say, "Michael Fitzmaurice has a timber forwarder or cutting equipment and it costs so much a tonne to cut and transport the product to the road, Joe blogs will supply a lorry to transport this, we will bring the product to a weighbridge and the owner will be forwarded with the tonnage within a week or two weeks". Unfortunately, that scenario has not occurred and many people are vexed about the matter.

There is another problem that I know exists in parts of Galway. We spoke about the matter earlier and I heard the delegation members mention Galway and Kilkenny. I mean instances where pine was planted on average ground but it has grown crooked and is now only good for pulp. Down the line that situation will cost people money. Realistically, when all of their expenses are taken out of the equation it will cost them money to replant such ground.

At the beginning of a partnership one receives an establishment grant. Coillte may have a few quid left over that will make participants happy and I refer to the front-loaded bits, which covers expenses. There is not huge maintenance required or a huge number of meetings involved when it comes to growing a forest. Is there not a case to be made for the people who joined in good faith? I do not blame Coillte for the timber not growing properly because in the past timber was planted in unsuitable locations. When timber was planted in boggy ground it just grew in every direction. Earlier Mr. Murphy said that everything was sound legally and Coillte ensured, like the HSE and every other State and semi-State body, that it came out fighting and declared it did everything right. I would question whether people were advised to seek other advice. Let us remember that it was not the norm to seek other advice at the time. I shall take Mr. Murphy at his word that Coillte was legally belted up well and that everything was good.

Morally, is it right if someone embarked on a scheme in good faith but the timber has not grown? I do not blame Coillte for the timber not growing because growing timber at that time was a totally different game than it is now. Such people are left with ground that will not yield a return and they must pay the cost of replanting. Let us remember that it is the State that paid the grant to the farmer and not Coillte. In addition, Coillte received the establishment grant that covers many problems and costs encountered along the way. Thinnings have been collected that would not have been documented. Therefore, is there a moral obligation on Coillte in this instance?

I wish to outline a concern. How does Coillte deflect the following concern? A felling licence lasts for a while. Is that right? An application for a licence must be signed by the participant and a licence may last for two, three or five years. In the private sector of forestry people are worried that Coillte will keep its own products or properties when forestry is cheap and approach Johnny and Mary who signed the docket because they signed it on a certain day but it may apply down the line. How does one counteract such a situation? Those people are vulnerable because Coillte can do such a thing. There is no point in Coillte saying that it cannot do so. Should a clause be included in the felling licence that the product will be sold when the price is good and not when it has plummeted? Why is that option not available to the people involved?

Finally, I want to know whether the following is true. Has Coillte sold a large amount of forestry to some other entity?