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

I welcome the members of the IFFPA and the Irish Timber Council and thank them for the efforts put into and nature of their submissions.

The main issue is the Bill which needs a lot of work. Before I get into that matter I must say that I totally oppose the merger of Bord na Móna and Coillte because they are like chalk and cheese and are incompatible. A merger would create a huge monster that would not deliver any great efficiencies.

As has been pointed out, Coillte's main role is forestry and in my view it should remain that way. I have no objection to Coillte lands being used for other purposes and we all agree to rural recreation, for example. We also know that such lands are used for telephone masts and so on. That is fair enough. However, the main purpose of Coillte's business is to ensure that we have well managed forested areas and to provide sawlog to the industry.

All of the industry players share the common aim of maintaining good forests, producing maximum value on the market, both at home and abroad, and to the highest standard possible in a good environmental condition. It seems to me that there is a lack of consultation and the sequence in which we must work is out of kilter. We have the Bill yet a decision has not been reached on the proposed merger of Coillte and Bord na Móna and we do not have the report from the forest policy review group. Therefore, we are working in the wrong order.

There is another issue. The Bill is all about regulation. As pointed out in the submission by the Irish Timber Council, a regulatory impact assessment or analysis was meant to form part of the Bill but we do not have it at present. There is a danger that the Bill will contain a great amount of over regulation.

A number of issues have been raised. The concerns, if I have summarised them correctly, seem to be over regulation. In other words, there will be a huge burden of regulation that will add cost to the industry - and this is where analysis comes in - that will not benefit the State or the public's interest commensurate with the amount of extra regulatory burden.

The second issue of major concern is retrospection which is important. In many cases the people who grow timber privately have borrowed money. What happens if after ten, 12 or 20 years someone says that for the past 15 years, even though the planting, hectarage and everything was approved - and this happened in practice - but we now realise that we have made a mistake in some calculation when double checking the application and seek payments to be returned? The recipients would then have to explain the situation to their bank manager. When that happens in a number of cases the bank managers will get wary of lending money and will say that the sanction for forestry grants is not worth the paper that it is written on. There is always a danger that after a long period has elapsed, and way beyond the normal Statute of Limitations, somebody could seek the money to be returned and a bank could be left short for the last five, six or seven years of the grant. This is a value issue that needs to be teased out when we debate the Bill.

I noticed a slight difference in the approach to fees adopted by the two organisations. If I recall correctly, the IFFPA has opposed fees and the timber council seems to have said "maybe fees but." I am interested to hear more clarification on the matter.

Another issue is, if I understood it correctly, that the Minister has unspecified and wide powers to amend plans at any time. He does not have to introduce regulations to do so and does not have to go through any procedure in the Houses. I would like confirmation that I have grasped the matter correctly. I am wary of such a provision. All Ministers will assure one that they would not do certain things - which I do not doubt - but they will not be Ministers forever.

The power remains so the issue is worthy of teasing out on Committee Stage. In that regard, the Minister cannot change how things are done with felling licences and the rest without a transparent system of appeals. Everyone has the opportunity to look at this. One of the issues that strikes me is that appeals in forestry do not have the possibility of oral hearings. We need to ensure a person appealing has access to transparent consideration and the chance to make the point. It seems there are a whole lot of issues. I am not sure we should go back to square 1 before we take the debate on Committee Stage and get a regulatory impact assessment. We all agree the Bill should be in existence and no one argues with the principle of it but it could put a major administrative burden on small people and inhibit people from planting more timber unless there is full scrutiny of all provisions in the Bill. Otherwise, the Bill might provide extra regulation without much gain.