Mr. Brendan Lacey:

Mr. Whelan will respond to the Deputy's question on the felling licence. On the management plan, management plans make sense. There is no doubt about that. Anyone wanting to run a business properly would have a management plan. The only issue we have with the provision of a management plan is that it is a compulsory requirement on every owner. Not every plantation has been funded by the State. That is one distinction.

I realise many have been, and perhaps there might be an issue where, in applying for a planting grant, for example, a grower might be required to outline certain proposals relating to what he might wish to do in future. However, that is in respect of new applications. Not every forest has been State-aided.

The other point about the provisions of the Bill is that the Minister can accept, reject or modify a grower's management plan. We do not see where that is coming from. At issue is the forest service as an administrative authority deciding on the management and functions of management. The service would be stepping into the shoes of the forest owner in deciding what he should grow and what his policy is in terms of what he wants to achieve from his forest. We have a problem with this dictation of the management plan by the forest service, quite apart from the burden.

The reality is that any larger growers will have management plans, more than likely. For example, they must have a management plan if they are applying for certification. Most of the larger growers would be certified to environmental standards. It sounds like we are making something out of nothing but the issue of the dictation of those management plans by the Minister is where we have the greatest concern. There is also the burden. The likelihood is that the larger growers will have management policies anyway, but to put a burden on the smaller growers to bear the cost of producing the plan is one problem. The dictation of what they should grow and how they should grow it is another problem.