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

My colleagues, particularly the Chairman, Deputy Pat Deering, have been alert to this issue. If George Lee, in an excellent piece of public service broadcasting by RTE, had not brought it to the fore and public attention, it would have been buried nicely. In fairness, we must lay the credit with George Lee who did a good job because he found a number of the people who had been affected. Are the delegates concerned? Do they have an inventory of members of their organisation who bave been affected? There seems to be a cohort, particularly in the south east and counties Carlow, Kilkenny and Laois. Those affected seem to be concentrated in particular geographical areas. There are also some in the west but not as many as in the midlands. Have the delegates had contact with them or given advice to them?

Notwithstanding what Coillte has stated and will state, is it not apparent that it was truly in the dominant position? It drew up the contract and its partners - the farmers - had to seek amendments to it, if properly advised which would have required the obtaining of legal advice. It appears from the significant number involved that they did not have an opportunity to do so. Is that a fair point? It tallies with something I did. I stopped a huge number of people from signing wind turbine and solar panel contracts because the proposed contracts would have meant they would have effectively been sterilising their land for a long time. It would have impacted not just on their ability to farm but also their single farm payment which would have been affected, as would have their ability to obtain planning permission for a site for a son or a daughter. That is what has happened. People walked into it and had their land sterilised.

The problem in this instance is that it involves a cash crop with a long-term return. That is the big issue and I had an uncle who was a forester. The unfortunate people concerned were like lambs to the slaughter and there was only ever going to be one winner. I have read Coillte's presentation to the committee carefully. Five scenarios are presented and it is the substantial winner in four of them. There is only one in which it loses in the upfront actuarial valuation and discounting values.

Mr. Sweetman made reference to early maturing forestry plantations. There was a gap in the payments. Surely Coillte had an onus to ensure there would be early maturity or a faster yield or growth to bring the period from 40 to 30 years. It seems people have been left without payments. That is what brought the issue to the fore for many.

There was no need for Coillte to communicate because it was in the driving seat. That is the way it felt. It was driving into the winner's enclosure and there was only ever going to be one set of losers and that set comprised many of the 630 people mentioned. When I saw them on television, what I noticed was that they were elderly and that they included widows. It is not a very good presentation. Coillte can bring in all of the PR agents it likes but a picture paints a thousand words. Many have said to me that this is scandalous and asked whether I am going to do something about it. A group of 630 is small; the number affected is not 6,300. All Coillte had to do was ensure they would be informed and receive their money in a timely fashion, that they would receive an indication of the level of return and whether there would be an early clearfell, as opposed to what had been projected.

The fact that there was a five-yearly review should have been communicated. Now Coillte is running after the problem after it has arisen. It is trying to correct it and while I accept that it seems to have got its act together, as someone who has always supported it, I am very disappointed with the way it has behaved in recent years. I will say this to its representatives directly. It will get it also because it is not very good to see what it has done. It has been running after itself since January or February since George Lee's programme. We have had constant communication and cannot fault Coillte in that regard. The delegates have had meetings with its representatives. However, Mr. Sweetman says he has not been brought up to speed in the past fortnight with what has been going on or on the number of people involved. I know that there are confidentiality issues in that regard, but I had hoped the delegates would identify a cohort of 200 members. Have they not reached the position where they know how many of the 630 are members of their organisation? The IFA could follow up with them in that regard to ensure this issue would never arise again with a contract. The moral of the story is that no one should ever sign anything for anyone without first obtaining legal advice. That is very clear and I send that message to farmers who are contemplating agreeing to wind turbine or solar panel placement or anything else on their farms. It is a salutary lesson, not just for the farming public but also for every member of the public who engages with organisations that are in a dominant position. If many of the farmers involved were to take the ultimate step, the contra proferentemrule and contract would apply whereby those in the lesser position would be viewed as such. It is up to Coillte to ensure that in in future nothing will be signed in the absence of proper legal advice being proffered and that it will be privy to it before anyone enters into a contract.