Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I will try not to rehash much of what was said. I will start with the positives. I welcome the Minister's comment that the deal in front of us is not his preferred option for strategic partnerships and that his preferred one is for farmers to plant trees on their own land through incentivisation under the €1.3 billion scheme, which we widely welcomed. He wants all strategies to be based on working in partnership with farmers to support their ambitions for forestry and those of the country. Unfortunately, what has happened with Coillte and the Gresham House deal has fired a bolt through the confidence barometer of farmers. Farmers have a sickly feeling in their stomachs again over forestry.

I echo the proposal to have representatives of Coillte back in here as soon as possible. There is widespread suspicion among farmers and, more worrying, timber processors to the effect that Coillte, as a semi-State company, is embarking on a radicalised commercial plan with the stated aim of monopolising its position in the Irish market. It is very clear that the ISIF is not a vehicle to create new forests but primarily a vehicle to take competitors out of the marketplace through the purchasing of competitors, having at all times the single aim of strengthening Coillte's dominant position in the market.

Coillte has been very purposeful regarding who it has partnered with. It looked to Scotland, which we have heard about numerous times. We have examined the strengths and successes of the Scottish market. Coillte saw Gresham House had a 25% market share in Scotland. It said it would consider one of the most dominant players in Scotland and bring it over here, allowing both to emerge quickly as the most formidable force in this country.

Coillte's has entered into a corporate alliance with Gresham House. Directly or indirectly, it is going to become either the primary or end purchaser of existing mature semi-State and private forestry in Ireland. It already has a dominant position in the Irish market, controlling 70% of the logs produced here. It decides who buys them and where they go. It can decide whether they stay in the country. It is very clearly engineering a business plan that will give it a near-dominant position in a market, at a time when this country has an absolute housing crisis. We appreciate that the use and demand for timber will treble over the next three years. Suddenly, we are allowing Coillte, which has been very purposeful in what it has been doing, to be the dominant player in this market. I am sure there is a business plan somewhere in Coillte that is very clear about this. What Coillte is doing and proposing will greatly strengthen its control over the market and ultimately affect the consumer. More critically, it will affect house-building in this country and young people trying to get into the housing market.

What Coillte is proposing in its strategic alliance with Gresham House has nothing to do with new forestry but is very much about buying up existing forestry. Gresham House does not do virgin forestry in Scotland. It does not buy or plant virgin land. Coillte knew that and who it was getting into bed with. It knew exactly what the business model was. It is not going to take the risk associated with planting involving a ten- to 15-year timeframe; it is going to buy up existing plantations. What is happening in Scotland is very clear, and Coillte will know this. Typically, a cubic metre of forestry in Scotland is worth £100. A very strong price heretofore would have been £130 per cubic metre. The latest price indicator we have for Gresham House in the Scottish market gives a figure of £380 per cubic metre. It is not only dominant but also radical, and it is buying up the market. We are creating a situation that allows a monopoly to emerge in the production of timber supply in this country. We cannot simply sit back and allow it. This is a bigger issue than the issues of carbon and forestry; it is about us letting Coillte go ahead with its clear, stated plan to radicalise its business position in this country and monopolise the one commodity we have left.

There are a couple of key issues. A number of senior people in the Government have told us the deal is a done deal and cannot be changed. The funding is set up very clearly. There is to be €25 million invested by ISIF, which most people would assume is State-owned or at least State-backed. This fund is dependent on that, I would imagine. Has the Government not got the capacity to say it is pulling back the €25 million? If there is a hit for Coillte, a semi-State company, it will have gone into this with its eyes open. If there is a financial implication to reneging on the deal, it should accept it. It made a business decision and clearly did not pre-empt what was going to be the huge public backlash. If there is a hit, Coillte needs to take it. Has the Government explored the prospect of ISIF withholding the €25 million and saying it is not doing the deal?

In light of the huge public outcry, has the Minister any indication yet from Coillte regarding the €10 million investment already committed? Is that €10 million still locked in? As I understand it, several pension and investment funds have said to ISIF that they do not intend to proceed now. What is the level of investment? Is it still locked in at €10 million?

I propose to the Chairman that we invite representatives of the Irish Timber Council to appear before us. It is important that members realise the feelings of the processors and their fear that, by allowing what is happening, we are creating a monopoly. The Minister was already asked to meet another group but I ask that he and the Minister of State meet representatives of the Irish Timber Council also because the council has an important role to play in this. Its position, and its fear, is that processors will be isolated. At present, they are importing a lot of their timber. It could end up that Coillte, because it will control the market, will have many of our processors going abroad to bring in their timber. Could the Minister revert to me on my couple of key questions?