Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Matt Staunton and Mr. Johnny Fox from IMPACT. I apologise to the committee on behalf of the Chairman who is on business abroad.

Before beginning I wish to draw to attention that witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. If witnesses are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I remind Members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. Matt Staunton to make his opening statement. This meeting is part of the ongoing process of recent weeks regarding submissions in respect of the proposed sale of Coillte's timber harvesting rights.

Mr. Matt Staunton:

I thank the Chairman and members for the opportunity to address the committee. As the committee is no doubt aware, a political decision on this issue is imminent. This union's campaign is unique so far as it is not, at least at first glance, an industrial relations issue. When it comes to the State's forestry land, we believe everyone is a stakeholder. Therefore, when the union's Coillte branch began its campaign in late 2012, reaching out to people and organisations of like mind was an important first step.

In general, we believe that selling the rights to fell and sell timber to private operators would jeopardise a profitable State company and public access to forests and result in the closure of many, if not all, of the nation's private sawmills. It would deliver a devastating blow to tourism and forestry if access to our forests was to be restricted by private interests.

We believe that the financial return on the proposed sale would only generate enough cash to pay three weeks interest on the nation's debts. I describe this return as a few grains of sand in a desert of debt, which is a fair and accurate description. Also, it would be a net cost to the State according to Mr. Peter Bacon. Quite simply, the proposal does not add up.

The Coillte branch of IMPACT, representing 600 workers at the State firm, began a campaign against the proposed sale in November 2012. We reached out to a coalition of other organisations to form the Save Our Forests campaign. These include the Society of Irish Foresters, Birdwatch Ireland, Mountaineering Ireland, and more recently, Scouting Ireland - an organisation which has never become involved in any political issue.

Mountaineering Ireland proved to be a key partner on the issue. It had begun to inform about the negative effects of a possible sale of State forests nearly two years earlier. For Mountaineering Ireland, it was all about access. For us, it was primarily about jobs, forestry, and the wider economic issues that were likely to occur as a result of any sale. By linking together, we were at liberty to talk about the full range of issues with authority and credibility. This pushed open doors for everyone involved.

On the issue of the forest harvesting rights, we knew it was never going to be enough for us to simply stand up and say "we are not having it". We knew we had to make the argument and we had to make it credibly. The materials we developed for the campaign, including the brochure and website, were created with this objective in mind. The Save Our Forests brochure which was developed by John Prior of the union's Coillte branch examined the social, economic and environmental case against selling Coillte assets. It was published in November 2012 and a copy was sent to every Deputy, Senator, councillor and Leader company in the country.

Our website Save Our Forests.ie became the online focal point of the campaign and we developed an associated Facebook page as part of that process. The Save Our Forests brochure highlighted the issue of jobs and revealed that the proposed sale could jeopardise up to 12,000 jobs in the Irish forest products sector which is currently worth €2.2 billion per year, including €286 million in exports.

As the union wanted to take the economic argument further, we took steps to properly investigate the economic consequences of the proposal. We commissioned economist Mr. Peter Bacon to weigh up the economic viability of the proposed sale. As it turned out, Mr. Bacon unearthed some uncomfortable truths. His ultimate assessment was that "the economic rationale for the proposed sale of Coillte harvesting rights no longer stands up and cannot be justified". This became the core message of our campaign. Mr. Bacon's assessment was, to put it bluntly, a cold look at the bottom line. He might well have concluded that the sale had some economic merit, and might even have concluded that a cost neutral sale of an asset, with a short-term gain, may have warranted some approval. We believe Mr. Bacon's conclusion drove a stake through the heart of the proposal.

His assessment, which we published in January, found that the State would remain liable for costs of €1.3 billion following a sale of the harvesting rights. Those costs included a loss of funds from Coillte's profit flow of €565 million, a deficit caused by the sell off of €313 million, the economic costs of Coillte job losses of €19 million, a Coillte debt liability of €172 million, a pension liability of €130 million and a loss of amenity of €105 million, amounting to a total of €1.3 billion.

Mr. Bacon found that to cover these costs, Coillte would need to sell timber at €78 per cubic metre, which is well above current or recent prices. The average recent price paid for Coillte supplies to sawmills has been just over €43 per cubic metre. This meant that, rather than generating State income, a sale of Coillte harvesting rights would represent a substantial cost to the Exchequer. The proposal, as it stands, requires the State to continue to maintain the land on which the forests are planted, despite the loss of profits currently generated by Coillte timber sales.

For us, the biggest kicker in Mr. Bacon's report was the estimated return on the sale of the harvesting rights at €774 million as an absolute outside maximum.

With an obligation to use half of the funds raised to pay off debt, as part of the troika bailout agreement, this would leave €387 million. Mr. Bacon's report concludes, "The funds raised would facilitate repayment of 0.2% of the total debt under this measure or provide 6.2% of the interest cost in 2012, about three weeks of interest. Clearly, from an accounting point of view, this transaction is marginal almost to the point of being negligible".

In addition to the very real risk of job losses at Coillte, there is also a substantial risk of job losses in the industries reliant on a strong supply of good quality domestic timber product. Mr. Bacon's report states the proposed sale has the potential to disrupt the timber processing sector owing to the lack of certainty over future supply. The report states job losses, which could arise in the processing industry if timber were to be exported without processing in Ireland, would add to future costs to the State. These risks were further highlighted in a special briefing for Oireachtas Members last February, in which we participated. Mr. Pat Glennon of the Irish Timber Council, ITC, the representative body for Ireland's sawmills, addressed the issue from the perspective of the timber industry. He said the proposed sale of Coillte's harvesting rights could lead to the closure of all ten of Ireland's sawmills, with the loss of 2,500 jobs. The ITC had just published a report which had found that it made no sense for the Government to proceed with the sale, from either a commercial, economic or financial point of view. The loss of jobs in the wider timber industry would disproportionately affect rural communities where the prospects of replacement employment are minimal, at best.

The inclusion of the wide range of leisure groups in the Save Our Forests campaign reflects very real concerns about restricted access to, and through, Coillte forests, in the event that private operators acquire the harvesting rights. Prospective buyers, set on the commercial exploitation of timber, would be unlikely to agree to maintain safe and optimum access to forests without significant incentives which are unlikely to be affordable. This would severely restrict countryside access in Ireland, in which there are no public rights of way over private land and 18 million visits are made to Coillte forests each year. This could also have a major impact on the tourism sector. Coillte estimates the value of tourism to these amenities at €270 million each year.

Drawing on the limited privatisation experience in New Zealand, we were able to say commercially-driven owners or concessions could not be relied upon to interpret access liberally or undertake the expenditure necessary to maintain forest land for safe and optimum recreational use. It is impossible to imagine how the State could maintain public access to Coillte lands after harvesting rights were sold to private companies. The Bacon report also identifies that Irish forests do not have a clear physical separation between forests of amenity value and forests of commercial value: "Coillte forests with amenity values are mostly commercial plantations, i.e., they have been planted, often with the more commercial species, with a view to eventual felling to realise the timber value". A good example is the cheek by jowl arrangement in places such as Ballinstoe, County Wicklow, where existing mountain bike trails weave in and out of areas where forest land has been commercially harvested. Coillte's open access policy means that a balance has been successfully struck between commercial and leisure activity. This balance would be unthinkable if that crop of trees was held by private interests.

IMPACT views the proposal to sell Coillte's forest harvesting rights in the light of the sale of other State assets. We observe that the State has often sold State assets in haste and then been forced to repent at leisure. Since 1990 when it started to become fashionable to sell off State assets, some 19 have been sold, barely generating €1 billion between them, when times were much more favourable for economic investments. There are two main reasons any sane Government would consider selling a State asset - either to improve public services or to generate much needed cash. This proposal clearly meets neither. The first State asset to be sold was Greencore in 1990. I wonder what we did with the paltry £100 million gained. Today we could do with the beet factories and industry jobs sacrificed in that failed experiment. Eircom which bucked the trend was sold with unseemly haste, with its entire essential infrastructure. It was mercilessly stripped of its assets by several owners and left with a significant debt. This was a profitable company with a leading edge in the development of mobile and broadband technology. It was squandered for short-term gains. The sale has hindered the development of broadband in Ireland significantly ever since and put a dent in the economy's international competitiveness.

Coillte does not cost the taxpayer anything, but it will immediately require ongoing State subsidies if the sale goes ahead. We have a fast growing, high quality sustainable crop, which was only made possible by decades of carefully skilled planning. To abandon such a profitable State enterprise, for a three weeks interest repayment and a legacy of maintenance costs, would be a measure beyond desperate.

The Save Our Forests campaign has spent the past six months or so putting these messages into the public domain. The Government has acknowledged that the arguments are compelling and they have been factored into its considerations. We need the members of the committee to pass on the message that this is the chance for our parliamentarians to clearly state the forests should not be sold but developed and enhanced instead. It is an opportunity for members to make it clear that to sell at such a loss would be an appalling act of defeatism that would numb the ambition and hope of the nation. It would send the message that we could not do it for ourselves, that we could not reap the benefits or maintain existing profits and jobs in this vital industry. This does not mean, however, that we are opposed to change. Positive reforms to help to secure the future of this vital public resource and genuinely enhance the operation and profitability of Coillte, thus increasing its return to the Exchequer and the taxpayer, would be welcome. IMPACT and other unions in the sector would gladly contribute to an exploration of possibilities in that regard.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the representatives of IMPACT. The trade union has made a significant contribution to this debate. I congratulate it on its commissioning of the Bacon report which has been of great assistance to us, having been prepared by a reputable person. As Mr. Staunton said, the position is farcical. The committee is halfway through a number of hearings on this issue and last week the Minister informed the Dáil that a decision would be made within a fortnight. That means the decision will probably be made at next Tuesday's Cabinet meeting. Therefore, this is probably the last meeting at which we will have an opportunity to discuss the issue. It is important to state Fianna Fáil is totally opposed to this sale. I have personal experience of the timber industry because I was involved in setting up a timber mill many years ago. As the person who set up Comhairle na Tuaithe and brought the various players around the table on the issue of rural recreational facilities, it a totally retrograde proposal to sell the harvest crop. A total of 45% of way-marked ways pass through Coillte lands. In many cases, Coillte also provides the access to the uplands, the mountains. Its record has been excellent in making sure its properties are available to the public. It has also organised its harvesting activities to minimise the discommoding of the public in gaining access.

The Minister's announcement has made this debate somewhat unreal. If the Government makes the decision next week to sell the forest crop, before the committee has had a chance to complete its work and submit a considered report, it will be outrageous in terms of the new system of politics in place. It is difficult to carry on business as usual today.

I endorse what IMPACT had to say. I was involved in organising and facilitating the briefing it gave to Oireachtas Members. I have had a long association with Mountaineering Ireland, through Comhairle na Tuaithe, and I also have had an association with timber mills. I have no financial interest in any timber mill but I was a co-operative manager and a paid employee of a timber mill which was supplanted by ECC Teoranta, one of the big five mills in the country which provides 200 jobs in my locality. I know the impact it and all the other mills have on their neighbourhoods.

I congratulate IMPACT on producing a report which, on analysis, speaks for itself. There is no return here or no cash here but there are huge downsides, some of which are not so calculable. However, if one tried to put figures on them, the negatives far outweigh the positives. Will IMPACT confirm the following? If private interests acquired the forests, they need not ensure they put enough timber on the market to keep all the timber mills going. If bidders from outside the country bid for the timber to export it in log form through one of our ports, a private seller would go for the biggest bidder and would have no regard for the many jobs at stake throughout a whole chain. A timber mill is not just a saw mill. Some 50% of what a saw mill produces is either chip or bark. The bark is all reprocessed by different processors and the chip all goes to chip board mills. In the case of ECC Teoranta, I understand it is going to use it to replace heavy oil in Ballaghaderreen to produce animal feedstuffs and to run the dairy plant there. We could do a bit more by using our timber to develop even more products.

Is it the case that many jobs depend on this and that it goes way beyond the direct primary processors to secondary processors and so on? What is the potential for jobs if we hold on to this crop and make it available in a planned uniform way and if we look at what the mills have been doing and add further added value to our timber products by developing even more sophisticated products? Much has been done in the past ten years but we could go another stage into secondary processing.

I find this debate a little surreal. All I hope is that all the members of the committee, as they have done at previous committee meetings, reiterate that we are opposed to this sale and we believe it is foolish. I am half afraid the Government will make a headline decision next week that it is against the sale or that it does not propose to sell but I am worried there might be a sting in the tail and an instruction to Coillte to sell parts of the forest crop or part of the forest itself and that there might be some unforeseen other way it will try to raise the cash through this particular asset. We must be very wary about that.

If there was such a proposal, since IMPACT has done Bacon I, it would be important to get a Bacon II very quickly, especially if the Government said that instead of selling the crop, it would sell some of the commercial parts of the plantation lock, stock and barrel. Is IMPACT concerned about that? Would it be able to produce a report quickly if that was mooted? I would prefer if it was a plain "No" because I always worry about a "No, but". I would be very afraid about the "but".

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank IMPACT for the presentation and congratulate it on the tremendous service it has given the Irish people by producing this report. It has certainly prompted a discussion within Government in this regard - hopefully, with the right outcome. Greencore and Eircom were mentioned. Many members of this committee have been trying to get the beet industry back after it was given away by the last Government in disgraceful circumstances. It was an industry around which many of us grew up and to which we owe a lot.

We have had many presentations on the sale of Coillte and from day one, my party has been totally opposed to it. We see Coillte as a profitable asset which is beneficial to the people. In a presentation last year, a person alluded to the fact that if it was sold, the more lucrative parts of the harvesting side would be seen as more viable and they would attract the interest and the State would be left with the more unviable side. Is that IMPACT's view also? What would be the consequences if that happened, that is, if the more lucrative parts of the harvesting rights were sold off?

IMPACT mentioned that positive reforms would help to secure the future of Coillte going forward. Will it elaborate a little on what it means by positive reforms and the role IMPACT can play in that regard? What worries me greatly is the impact on jobs. Some 600 people are employed directly and 2,500 are employed in the timber mills. Up 12, 000 other jobs could be affected. Deputy Ó Cuív said that if it was bought by an outside company and it took the logs out of the country, it would damage jobs.

In regard to the price of the sale, is IMPACT relying on what Dr. Bacon said, that is, €774 million? IMPACT alluded to the fact that Coillte was making €43 per cubic metre when it should be making €78. Will it elaborate a little on that? I thank IMPACT and applaud it on the work it has done. It has done us a great service. I hope the decision-makers will take cognisance of its presentation, the work done and the campaign it has run to protect a national asset.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank IMPACT for its presentation. I also commend Coillte on the report it commissioned at the end of last year. At the end of the presentation, IMPACT said it was an opportunity for parliamentarians to state that our forests should not be sold but should be developed and enhanced. I have no problem saying that our forests should not be sold but should be developed and enhanced. However, I have grave reservations about Coillte's ability to develop and enhance our forests in accordance with Government policy and Coillte policy. In previous meetings of this committee, I have been quite critical of Coillte. I am not in any way criticising individual foresters - I appreciate they are doing the very best job they can - but more Coillte policy and, indeed, Government policy to which Coillte must adhere.

There are three issues which I think are hindering the development and enhancement of our forests and the industry surrounding it. One is supply contracts, in particular for thinnings and pulp. We have huge forest plantations.

In the east Clare-south Galway region a lot of planting took place during the late-1970s, the 1980s and until the early-1990s. Many of those trees need to be thinned now yet Coillte does not engage in supply contracts. Admittedly, there is a relatively small factory that produces stakes and a growing wood chip enterprise. There is scope to develop a combined heat and power initiative and other forestry industries. I would like to hear the views of the delegation on the matter. I realise that Coillte has a supply contract for its two Medite products and another plant that it owns. However, the supply contract predates its ownership and Coillte does not enter into new contracts.

Many areas were planted throughout the 1960s and 1970s. Some areas were completely unsuitable but they were planted in good faith. People were testing what they could do. Some of the planted areas had a negative environmental impact and led to deforestation and others were planted but the crop did not grow. Those areas would be far better off if the crop was taken off. A cost would still be involved even if Coillte allowed the land to revert to its original state.

Obviously Coillte must maintain its forestry areas and would have to replant them or replant a commensurate area somewhere else. Therefore, Coillte would have to buy it. I am talking about Government policy, not Coillte's policy. Coillte cannot avail of a grant to buy land and must compete with private owners who can obtain a grant.

There have been a lot of positive development of recreational areas. I am aware the Deputy Boyd Barrett held a protest at Avondale, County Wicklow. There are newer developments like Ballycuggaran in east Clare which I welcome. There is scope for a lot more development and it could lead to tourism related jobs such as mountain biking, hill walks, etc. There have been developments but not enough. I would like to hear the views of the delegation on the three matters.

Mr. Matt Staunton:

My colleague, Mr. Johnny Fox will also help me to answer some of the questions. It would be more efficient for me to respond to the final points made by Deputy McNamara in reverse.

I do not speak for Coillte but workers who work for it. They would welcome any developments that improve access, including the new walkways and areas outlined by the Deputy.

I am not qualified to answer his criticism of Coillte policy but he made an important point. I shall wrap up by stating that the legislation on forestry dates back to the 1940s and 1950s which was followed by a huge gap until the end of the 1980s when the Government decided that a State company like Coillte would act like a machine to carry it forward. I mentioned in my presentation that this meeting is an opportunity for parliamentarians to have their say on the issue. I hope that they will go further and introduce legislation on forestry policy and arm Coillte with proper parliamentarian driven policies because legislative vacuums exist. My members have pointed them out. I hope my response has helped the Deputy.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you very much.

Mr. Matt Staunton:

Deputy Martin Ferris posed a question and I appreciate his support. He put his finger on the nub of the issue. Let us examine what Dr. Peter Bacon did when he carried out his assessment. He assessed how much the initiative would cost Ireland and added all of the component parts together. Then he declared that in order to pay the bill the target of €78 per square metre must be achieved. He made the fair assessment that the price had never been achieved. Just somewhere north of half of it has ever been achieved. He pointed out the huge deficit. He also pointed out that if one sold at that price and got the required money then half of it must be made available for job creation in order to replace all that was lost. The remaining half would have to pay interest off a debt. That would be the same as not making a full credit card payment on the minimum monthly amount.

Dr. Bacon also made a key point about the Greencore and Eircom experiences. We have sold State assets before. We had a gross and net figure. Greencore should have earned us €200 million but when all of the advisers and stockbrokers were paid the sum left over was an awful lot less. Directly after 1990 the initiative led to the closure of those factories, the closure of that industry and the closure of jobs. If ever there was a time that we needed the industry it is now.

Deputy Ó Cuív raised a number of queries with us. I cannot leave here without thanking him for how he facilitated and helped us to reach parliamentarians in recent months. Today he posed three interesting questions. The simplest way to answer his first question is in the following manner. The mere fact that there would be an uncertainty of supply in the future and that Coillte would be all sold in one wallop - and we do not know if it will be in one wallop - is worrying. The Irish Timber Council made the point in its assessment that the measure would be enough to start a threatened closure of ten timber mills in Ireland. An uncertain supply would mean that investors would take their foot off the pedal and the industry would fall back.

Towards the end of the Deputy's contribution he asked what would happen if the Government did one thing instead of another. He can take my presentation and all of the fears and threats that I have raised as code for letting 40% of Coillte go which is just as bad as letting it all go. All of the uncertainty and losses would end up as the same thing. It might come down to who will lose the amenity value somewhere but the overall economic argument still remains.

Mr. Johnny Fox:

Deputy Ó Cuív asked what would happen if the Government made a different decision. The IMPACT union would have Bacon II ready immediately because the arguments against a partial or full sale remain the same.

Like my colleague, I do not profess to speak for Coillte. The Deputy raised issues that are pro-job and IMPACT and its members in Coillte support them despite the fact that it would mean that more private owners would receive licences. There is a good relationship between Coillte and private owners regarding the development of forestry. It is on that basis that his questions were pro-jobs for Ireland plc and we support them. If Coillte was sold it would render his remaining questions useless. One could not answer them because we would not own it anymore. That is my main response.

Martin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the gentlemen for attending and for their interesting presentation. I am concerned about the sale of Coillte as I remain unconvinced of its merits. I am not ideologically opposed to the sale of valuable State assets if a business case can prove that it is worthwhile. It would be ideal if money raised could be used for stimulus capital projects. In my constituency in Kildare South there is a desperate need for a ring-road around Athy that would cost in the region of €35 million. It would generate a lot of extra local industries. We need a balanced debate and I do not just say that in regard to Coillte.

While the sale of a State asset can be an emotive subject, if it makes money available for use in other ways, we can get real bang for our buck. I acknowledge that there have been examples of sales of State assets which have been disastrous for the country. The sale of Eircom and the way in which it was asset stripped can be linked to the national broadband deficit. Deputy Ferris referred to Greencore and the loss of our sugar industry, which the Chairman and I are both passionate about re-establishing. Ironically, one of the main drivers during the boom to close the industry from the Greencore and private sector points of view was the value of the 500 acre site of the sugar processing facility in Carlow at a time of huge costs. It is perhaps a different issue, but lessons must be learned.

I acknowledge that the witnesses may not be able to answer my questions in light of their positions. Where do they see the future of Coillte should the Government decide that there should be no sale of a State asset? Do they think the status quois sustainable and do they see improvements which can be made in the operation of Coillte? Are the witnesses confident that in its present form Coillte can deliver on the enhanced operations and profitability which they touched on earlier? I would be interested to hear about improvements the witnesses feel can be made and I acknowledge that any observations they make will be from a staff perspective.

Mary Ann O'Brien (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Staunton and Mr. Fox to the joint committee and acknowledge how pleased I am that they attended. I am very impressed by their hard-hitting, pointed report. While I had already stated publicly that I am strongly in favour of the Government not selling the State asset, any doubts I might have had have been completely obliterated by the excellent presentation this afternoon. Before I move to the Bacon report, I note that we are talking here about part of our national soul. I am so pleased the witnesses collaborated with economist Peter Bacon to produce a report which shows so clearly that all we will gain for giving away our soul will be the ability to pay off our credit card debt for a month. My response is "oh my gosh".

I really welcome the closing remarks of the IMPACT presentation. I realise the witnesses are here on behalf of IMPACT rather than Coillte. I disagree with them that the report "should" affect the decision of the Government. If the workers are in favour of turning Coillte around, of sweating it instead of selling it, of working together since we all love it, of changing their culture to reform and work with Coillte to introduce some entrepreneurial spirit, that must be put on the public record as a no-brainer.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not have a question per se but wish to add my comments. I thank the witnesses for their contribution today and for the report they have produced. They have summed up the argument very well through their collaboration with Mr. Peter Bacon and other organisations. Most of us sitting here are very concerned to ensure that we do not sell our soul for tuppence ha'penny. The witnesses have gone further than that to make a cogent argument very well, which is what they knew they had to do. We have been talking to Ministers to say that this is not something we want to see happening. The joint committee has heard very good evidence on the matter and I am grateful to the witnesses for bringing the report before us today.

Luke Flanagan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

IMPACT has provided one hell of a tool to fight the sale of Coillte. The witnesses have put together a brilliant argument which means that committee members who must deal with a variety of different issues have an excellent resource which we have been able to use to put the arguments across. The argument would not have such potential to win without IMPACT's help. It is right that everyone is heaping praise on IMPACT for what it has done, but I have seen situations where every Member of the Dáil agrees with a proposal which has not succeeded. Before being elected, I attended the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government with the Turf Cutters and Contractors Association whose presentation and proposals were so well received that we would have been carried out on the shoulders of members had the ceilings not been too low. Last week, however, I attended a court case in Kerry which shows that just because everyone agrees with one in Dáil Éireann, it does not mean that the right thing will be done. Hopefully, it will be different here. IMPACT has provided one hell of an argument. If democracy and presenting a good argument mean anything, Coillte cannot be sold. I am against the sale as, it appears, is everyone else. On that basis, it cannot be sold.

I have asked the following of every group which has attended the committee. There has been a review done by the Government of the forestry sector. We spoke to the saw-milling sector, the representatives of which said they were not asked for any input into the review. We spoke to foresters last week and, sadly and predictably, they were not asked for any input. Were the witnesses and their organisation asked for any input? I see shaking heads, which suggests that they were not. Who was asked for input? That might explain why the review has not been published. Perhaps, there is nothing in it given that no one was consulted.

The idea of reforming Coillte is essential. I am curious to know what the witnesses think is required to reform it. The saw-milling sector representatives made the point that while they were not in favour of Coillte being sold, certain criteria would have to be adhered to if it were. In other words, they wanted to ensure they would be guaranteed their supply. We all know what the downside to that is. I would not buy a car off someone who told me I could only use it one day a week and attached other preconditions. I might purchase it, but I would not give them the amount of money I would if I were allowed to use it all week. The witnesses will know where I am coming from. The reality is that if the preconditions necessary to guarantee the future of the saw-milling sector are imposed on any sale, the return will be even less. We would not even get a week's worth of interest on our credit card debt.

While reform is required in Coillte, my fear is that the necessity for reform will be used as a way to sell it by the back door. One fears even admitting the need for reform in those circumstances. It is like the situation where people come to rob one's house. At the front door someone speaks to you in a friendly way while there is someone else at the back door kicking it in. My worry is that while Coillte may not be sold via the front door, something may be going on to ensure that it is sold by the back door on the basis that everyone admits Coillte is not operating well. If it is not operating well, Government may insist that we cannot have it both ways and Coillte will be got rid of bit by bit.

Like other members, I have been contacted by many people on the issue. If someone robbed me, I would report it to the Garda Síochána. People have gone to Ballinasloe Garda station to report the fact and provide information which shows that Coillte is being defrauded.

Yet, Coillte will not report it. That alone suggests something should be done about it. I have since been contacted by Coillte and asked what was going on. I told them that they know the issue and I asked why Coillte did not go to the Garda Síochána. If that is going on, there needs to be one hell of a change. My fear is that the call for a change will be used to sell Coillte by the back door. I hope it does not happen. Well done, the witnesses have made our job so much easier. If democracy and logic mean anything and if the people who have come before the committee are listened to, it will not be sold. It is game over and it is time to start concentrating on the future, how to develop it and make the most of it as has been done in Switzerland and other countries.

Fiach MacConghail (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not a member of this committee so I thank the Vice Chairman for allowing me to speak because I am passionate about this matter. That is why I am attending this committee meeting rather than the committee of which I am a member. Whether one agrees with the point being made, and I am utterly opposed to the sale, it was a very cogent and clear presentation. The innovative decision to go straight to the top and go for someone like Dr. Peter Bacon, who has credibility, bodes well for the argument. It is a very strong argument and a strong case. I am absolutely opposed on many grounds to the sale of Coillte. It does not make sense. Along with other aspects of our cultural heritage in other areas, such as the National Museum and the National Library, it worries me that there seems to be a sense that the Government is not considering our cultural heritage. I include forestry as important parts of our soul and our DNA.

The witnesses spoke about the union not being afraid of change and referred to the legislative vacuum. While the witnesses are not speaking on behalf of Coillte, it would be helpful to hear about the legislative vacuum because the debate will continue if we win this campaign. Deputy Boyd Barrett has been leading this campaign in a public way. I do not ask for detail on the legislative vacuum but perhaps some comment will be helpful for someone like me, who is not so knowledgeable. What broad change is IMPACT in favour of in terms of future sustainability? The presentation referred to profitability and the loss of funds from Coillte profit flow of €565 million. Did Dr. Peter Bacon get access to figures from Coillte? Has the profit flow figure been rejected? I can see how the Government may look at other figures and argue the toss. I seek clarification on that point.

I have concerns about the mixed messages on this. It is no accident that there are two Independent Senators, who are Taoiseach's nominees, on the same side but a number of Ministers said it might not be for sale. I need a definitive response but there is talk about the forestry review. It is astonishing so many witnesses before the committee have not been consulted. I listened to the debate last week. The article written by Mr. Paddy Woodworth of 12 March in The Irish Times mentions that the Government had commissioned a report from Goodbody stockbrokers. Is that the same as the forestry review? The Goodbody report was supposed to inform the Government why it is of interest or necessity to sell Coillte's harvesting rights. I would like to hear the view of the IMPACT witnesses on that point. Should we get an update on the report?

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Vice Chairman for the opportunity to address the committee. I commend IMPACT on its campaign and its report, which is an excellent report not just in outlining the need to oppose the plan to sell off the harvesting rights of our public forestry but also in highlighting how important forestry is and its enormous potential for the State and the economy if properly managed, developed and expanded. It goes without saying for any sane and sensible person that we must resist any attempt to sell off the harvesting rights of Coillte. The thought of selling our forests is nothing other than a proposal to engage in an act of cultural, economic and environmental vandalism. The thought that this would be done to pay off the debts of banks and, quite likely, that banks will end up owning the forest, either the Chinese State bank, a Swiss bank or subsidiary of a Swiss bank, which Bertie Ahern is involved in, is beyond belief. What do the witnesses think of the latest noises from the Government in response to the IMPACT campaign, the campaign I am involved in and the more general public revulsion at the proposal? It has produced some interesting comments, most notably from the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, suggesting it will not go ahead. On the other hand, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, is holding the line that it is in the programme for Government and is going ahead. I take it the Government is rattled and under pressure but also subject to pressure from the troika. What do the witnesses think on that point? I am of the view we must crank it up, particularly with a Cabinet meeting imminent where a decision may be made. There is a protest next Tuesday to coincide with the Cabinet meeting outside the Dáil and I hope many people turn up. What can we do to crank up the pressure on the Government to make the right decision?

Can the witnesses comment on the Government's claim about the amount of debt that would be paid down if the harvesting rights were sold? There is an argument that it is a drop in the ocean and would have no IMPACT on debt. The Government has used the argument that the other half of the proceeds will be used to create jobs. Do the witnesses agree this is even more of a joke? What would happen is that more jobs would be lost from the sale of the forests. This not only refers to the jobs in existence but the potential to create more jobs if we invested in forestry. I am interested in the witnesses' approach to this because the Government is talking about another €300 million for job creation. I think it is a joke but it is important for IMPACT to comment on it.

Can the witnesses comment on the other narrative from the Government, which is to make a major distinction between selling the forest and selling the harvesting rights? The Government has trotted out this line to justify the sale. Something that needs to be highlighted on this point is that if the Government sells the harvesting rights, Coillte will require a subsidy and very quickly pressure will come on to sell the amenity element of Coillte or pressure will come on Coillte to charge admission fees to public forests. It is interesting that, in recent years the authorities at Avondale have started to charge admission to the car park. They did not do that in the past. The pressure is on Coillte to start internally privatising because of the commercial pressure and privatisation pressure.

I ask the witnesses to comment on this point. They also should comment on the issue of whether some privatisation already has taken place through the back door in recent years. I refer to the sale of 45,000 ha, possibly to pay down Coillte's deficit, much of which was bought by banks. What is IMPACT's take on this? Has a process of back-door privatisation already been under way in recent years that would be accelerated, were the Government to even partially privatise the harvesting rights?

My final question is about the alternative because as many members have alluded to and as has been discussed here and elsewhere, there are problems with Coillte and they are being used to justify a possible sale. While all of us are of the view that a sale would make things worse, what does IMPACT think about how we should articulate the positive argument and the positive alternative? In campaigning, we have held up the example of Switzerland as a good model, where there is substantial public forestry, a high level of afforestation and a huge amount of employment generated therefrom. The witnesses should talk a little more about what could be done here with a public model of forestry development to increase employment, give more revenue to the State and which would be a better, more positive alternative to the plan to privatise the harvesting rights.

Mr. Matt Staunton:

I might start. However, at the outset, I note the time remaining may not necessarily enable us to do justice regarding some of the questions posed. Let me pick it up in this way: whatever some people and users might think about Coillte, it most certainly is not a basket case but is economically viable. It is a company that returned a profit of €32 million in 2010 and a profit of €20 million in 2011. It provided a dividend to the State of €10 million in 2011 and an interim dividend last year of €2 million, with the promise of more. Let us be straight - there is no question of a viability issue in this regard. Were Coillte the Irish arm of a multinational, everyone would be singing its praises but because we own it ourselves, for some reason people miss that point.

As we went through this campaign, a couple of things became evident. When one compared the consultation process with the position in Britain - a different jurisdiction - it was way out of sync. The British had a much longer, broader and wider consultation process. We certainly are aware of the ideologies of the Government over there at present in respect of the sale of State assets. However, it was so taken aback by the show of support from people in that country that it stopped in its tracks. This consultation deficit brings me to the next point, which I mentioned earlier, namely, there is something of a vacuum in this regard. We keep considering strands of reports that were commissioned but as to who knows about this or that report, we certainly do not know about them and were not consulted on them.

Fiach MacConghail (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Was IMPACT consulted on the report from Goodbody Stockbrokers?

Mr. Matt Staunton:

No, we have no ownership of them. However, there is a crying need to identify that a vacuum exists in this regard, which needs to be joined up. Perhaps, as parliamentarians, members can take hold of this, bring it to the right place and deal with it. It is a step we envisage members taking. Earlier, I mentioned there could be a legislative framework vacuum at this point, mainly because so much time has elapsed and I have heard a great deal of concern from members about certain things Coillte does or does not do.

I deliberately made the final point included in my presentation, which is it is not enough for us simply to state we do not like this proposal. We were obliged to acknowledge there is an economic argument and while we might have got an answer we did not like, we got an answer we did. However, the key point and message I am getting from everyone is it is not sufficient to leave it at that. We know this and are aware that some viable alternative in respect of examining this area must be provided. IMPACT represents workers who work in semi-State companies and consequently, I pose the question as to what is the contribution such companies should make to our national recovery. Is it that we should sell them off willy-nilly and subsequently regret it as I suggested to my presentation or should we put some focus on what is expected from them? A company with profit figures such as those I have illustrated from Coillte is well placed and has a good platform to make a better contribution. This also is true of an organisation such as the Irish Aviation Authority, which returned a profit last year of €24 million. Such companies are well placed to make their contribution but it may not be by selling them. The workers who work in such organisations will state it most certainly is not by selling them. I received some technical queries on how deep was the trawl undertaken by Peter Bacon when making his assessment. Bacon ploughed very deeply. He secured co-operation from the company and the assessment he stacked up is based on real figures and real engagement. My point is it is not one of an outsider looking in, as he had co-operation and got into the books and it is very firm. There are a couple of other strands on which my colleague, Mr. Johnny Fox, perhaps could pick up.

Mr. Johnny Fox:

In responding to the questions posed by Deputy Heydon, it is important to note so doing may answer many of the questions the joint committee's members collectively have asked. One point coming across is the question of what is the company's future, where is it going, what can it do and what kind of company is it. Consequently, it is important to place on record a number of points. Coillte has been restructured internally four times since 2004, namely, in 2004, 2007, 2009 and most recently, in 2012. The latest restructuring is very interesting because it has broken the link between the pay and staff structures of Coillte as they related to the public service. Its staff structures, promotional structures and pay structures are now linked to the private market. Effectively, it is a company that is forward-looking and not one that is reliant on its past in order to make good business decisions or good decisions on behalf of the State or the citizens of the country. The point in this regard is that it has a flexible staff, which understands that to make this a good company, it must change. This was done four times without a single dispute within the company. It is important to put that on record because effectively, this means that in the first instance, it is a confident company with a confident workforce, whose staff members are not afraid to take commercial decisions or decisions which impose commercial realities on them. Such fear is something for which public service workers often have been criticised.

The second part of my response pertains to the question of where is the future for this company. In common with other commercial semi-State or State companies, Coillte has a role to play in a new area of industry, that is, the biomass and bioenergy sectors. Were Coillte to be sold, it would put back any research or progress in that area, which potentially could help the country to kick-start a recovery and this certainly is where the future of Coillte lies. There is no question about this and I believe the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, mentioned in the Dáil that there is a future for Coillte in this area. This undoubtedly is a new technology that must be developed and we must have Irish companies, not foreign companies, at the heart of it. This is the reason it is so important to keep this company in its current position. Therefore, the status quo is not good enough. I do not mean this to be critical of Coillte, as what I mean is one cannot remain static while the whole world is moving around one. Coillte - I believe the company agree - undoubtedly should be at the heart of developing new technologies in forestry. In addition, there are other areas in which it can make a contribution and can improve. For example, the potential of Coillte's lands in respect of the tourism industry is untapped. It is only touching the surface at present and if it can bring benefits to the economy worth €270 million per year from an untapped resource, what could it bring to the economy were it to be tapped properly? Coillte is also expanding into making available its lands to telecommunications companies to improve the provision of broadband by putting in place infrastructure on them. My responses to the questions from Deputy Heydon answer those of everyone in the room as to exactly how important is Coillte to the economy and what role it can play.

As to whether IMPACT is confident in Coillte in its current form, the answer to that question is both "Yes" and "No". We are confident in Coillte and are confident that its current form will continue to change to meet the necessary requirements to meet the challenges of the future.

We are confident that we can do that. Coillte has restructured itself four times in eight years. No private company would do that. It is remarkable and that needs to be put on the record. We in IMPACT have great confidence in Coillte in its current form and believe that it can play a leading role. That answers many of the questions that committee members have posed.

We can confirm that Coillte is not in disagreement with anything Bacon has said. Coillte is very much in line with that. The only contribution we were asked to make on the Goodbody issue was to bring our views on the Bacon report to that committee but we made no input to the report. That was already done when we were asked to make a submission to the committee that the Government had set up which did not have Goodbody on it. We can confirm that Goodbody worked exclusively with Coillte which supplied commercial information. Nobody else had an input.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the noises coming from the Government I have heard a narrative to the effect that we do not need to worry because it is not going to be sold off. I do not think we should be complacent until we hear a definitive statement. What does IMPACT make of the noises from the Government on this issue?

Mr. Matt Staunton:

We have heard those noises and while we welcome them the uncertainty around the issue does not do the industry any good. The sooner the matter is decided, one way or another, the better. Even if we get a decision that we like that will not be the end of it. We will still need to re-stack and get all our houses in order. We are up for that, as I have said. If anyone attempts to introduce privatisation through any back door we will be campaigning again. We will not go away.

Luke Flanagan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When the sawmilling sector was here two weeks ago it made comments on the investment in its sector on the basis of information provided by Coillte. The information was that there was far more feedstock on the way to the sawmills than was the case. The sawmills invested on the basis of that information. That is why the price they must pay for feedstock is so high. Coillte has them over a barrel because there is so much capacity that these companies will go to the nth degree or, as is the case, much higher than any price outside Ireland to get their feedstock. While I think its report is excellent Coillte needs to be taken to task but at the same time care should be taken not to use that as an excuse to sell it. Does Mr. Staunton have an opinion on that point?

Mr. Matt Staunton:

The point is taken. We are not Coillte.

Mr. Johnny Fox:

We are not Coillte but the Deputy's point is taken. The recent restructuring of Coillte is a serious attempt to reach out to the market in Ireland. I cannot speak for Coillte but I think there would be a change of attitude. I can say that, based on the discussions we have had about the latest restructuring, it would be more amenable to being a good supplier in the industry. I do not think it would want the negative publicity Deputy Flanagan has mentioned. We cannot speak for it except to say that from what we know that would not necessarily be the prevailing view in the company. If that happened in the past everyone would agree that it should not have. From a worker's point of view it would not be in anyone's interest for the company to go down that road because it does nothing for the forestry industry.

Luke Flanagan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It gave it a higher price as a direct result. I believe the people from the sawmilling sector. They know what they are talking about. It has resulted in the price going up and it was accepted as the main reason for the price being higher. It is important to state that.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Further to Deputy Flanagan's point the timber industry representatives said that the key issue was to expand forestry, that this would deal with the price issue. What is IMPACT's view of that? It seems obvious to me that for various reasons we need to expand the amount of forest cover in this country which is very low by European standards. What does IMPACT see as the obstacle to that expansion? Is it just lack of public investment? If so, what do the witnesses think could be done to remedy that? We discussed one suggestion earlier, which several people have floated, that we should go to the European Investment Bank and look for money to expand public forestry. How does IMPACT see forestry expanding?

Mr. Matt Staunton:

As a union that represents forestry workers we are all for expanding the industry and the State asset. There is no doubt about that. How we get there is the issue.

Deputy Flanagan is adding to my argument that there has been a recent artificial hike in the price which means that the chance and prospect is that if it went to a real market it would get less than Bacon assessed.

Luke Flanagan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no argument about that.

Mr. Matt Staunton:

The union movement is all in favour of increasing forestry, and that activity. The missing vital ingredient is a debate in this House. The State needs to construct a policy for where it wants to go with forestry. Deputy Boyd Barrett has put his finger on this point.

Mr. Johnny Fox:

The answer to the question also lies in investment in the new technologies of biomass and bioenergy. Investment is needed in that area. That is the future. Coillte would not be in a position now to do that, given that its profits are €20 million a year. It requires further intervention from the State because it is new technology but it has strong potential.

Luke Flanagan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was suggested by the foresters that the equivalent of a Bord Bia for forestry be set up and it was also intimated that this would not cost much, possibly nothing because there are already people in the forestry and milling sectors who would be only too delighted to come on board. It would pull everything together in the way a county development board does. The right hand would always know what the left hand was doing. Could that idea be pushed?

Mr. Matt Staunton:

There are precedents in the commercial semi-State sector for covering a couple of churches with one agency like Coillte. For example, the Irish Aviation Authority deals with safety, air traffic control and other services so I would not necessarily suggest setting up another agency to deal with it. This brings me back to my point that this House needs to debate forestry policy and who deals with things when they go wrong. That is a fact.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Staunton and Mr. Fox very much for being present here today and in particular for getting Mr. Bacon on board to highlight the issues in the debate. It is an ongoing debate that could come to a conclusion reasonably soon.