Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming to the meeting. I thank, in particular, Ms Corcoran and Mr. King for their attendance. It is not easy for them to come before a public forum, body or committee and set out their stall in respect of a private business transaction into which they entered in good faith. I admire them for it and I am glad they have come to the meeting. It is rare we have such a personal request and personal story. It is great to hear personal testimony because it gives validity to the issues. I very much welcome the witnesses.

I must say I am somewhat shocked and disappointed with Coillte. We have engaged with representatives of the organisation in recent months. Having said that, it is important we hear every side of the argument. From what has been laid before us today, there will clearly be a need for us to engage. It is a matter for the committee at large but I will certainly be recommending that we invite representatives of Coillte to a committee meeting to respond in a formal way to what has been set out in the witnesses' submissions today.

We know something about the partnership. I have done some work on this today. My understanding is that in excess of 630 farm partnerships are in place. Our Chair is from County Tipperary, as is Deputy Martin Browne. Galway and Tipperary are the largest counties with partnerships. That is particularly important. There is a matrix, county by county. I am somewhat shocked and surprised at what has been laid out before us in respect of Coillte but we must deal with what the witnesses say to us. An attractive proposition was set out initially. Farmers would retain 100% of the ownership of the land. There would be advance payments of €635 per hectare. A forest premium would be paid to forestry services for 15 years, which is fair and reasonable. Our witnesses bought into that. The farmer would have seen 80% of the thinning profits and 55% of the clear fell. The partnership has set out its understanding of the implications of the replanting obligations and we are aware of that. It looked on paper an attractive proposition. Our witnesses mentioned a brochure and I would be interested to see it if they would furnish the committee with a copy of the coloured brochure that was provided in respect of the marketing tools to hook them into the engagement. I would have thought our witnesses engaged in something that is now very much talked about, that is, forestry. They were clearly ahead of their time and believed it was the right thing to do. The State is an advocate for planting the right tree in the right place and for supporting forestry and enterprise. I would expect the State to have some role, and it should have some role, in supporting our witnesses.

Have our witnesses gone down the road of arbitration? Is that a road they wish to go down or have been advised to go down? Is it a path they are resisting? That is my first question. I will ask a few questions before I finish.

Our witnesses clearly feel left out in the cold. They feel they have not been consulted and there are issues over transparency and engagement. If Coillte is not engaging in an open and transparent way in respect of communication and accountability for its actions, one has to ask why that is the case. I am sure our witnesses have thoughts on the matter. What do they think is going on? Do they feel there is some sense that Coillte wants to run away from this issue? Do they want a better deal? What is the case? I invite our witnesses to share their thoughts.

The witnesses have also talked about face-to-face engagement with Coillte. The question I ask most people is what is their request. What are the witnesses asking of this committee? I do not know if we are powerful but I think we are influential. We have contacts in Parliament from right across the political spectrum, which is important. On the basis of what I have heard, I will be seeking an early intervention and inviting representatives of Coillte to come and speak to the committee to set out their version of events. What more would our witnesses like us, as members of an Oireachtas committee, to do? They have set out their stall. They appear very reasonable. I do not get any sense of anger or aggression in what they have asked. Theirs is a reasonable and right request. At the end of the day, they invested on the basis of a set of proposals set out to them and for them by Coillte. It is important that those commitments are honoured. The important thing is they had a good opportunity to air their point of view today.

I am mindful that representatives of Coillte are watching proceedings. I have no doubt but that Coillte is aware of our witnesses' appearance before the committee. It takes an active view of our committee and its work. What would the witnesses like this committee to do to support them? They might share with us some of their engagements with their local public representatives and how all of that is going.