Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the deputation from Coillte. A number of people contacted me when they heard the witnesses would be in attendance. The main thrust of my contribution will be based on the partnership arrangements and agreements. The witnesses have said in response to previous questions that Coillte intends to improve its communications. I have heard various stories, but I would like to hear Coillte's side of the story. The first issue I would like to raise has been addressed to some extent. I would like to hear a little more of a breakdown of how Coillte intends to deal with historical instances of sums of money being paid to partners for timber without any documentation or receipts setting out the weights involved, etc. This created issues with Revenue because the people in question were not able to account for what specifically the money was for. They could not provide a breakdown of what they got the money for. I ask the witnesses to address this matter. I am reliably informed that there are some cases of this nature.

I was also given a couple of examples of people who asked to dissolve their partnerships with Coillte for various reasons. They may have become disillusioned or whatever. They were told that if they bought out Coillte, it would cost them two and a half or three times more than it would cost Coillte to buy them out. I ask the witnesses to explain those figures. Are they accurate? If so, why is this the case?

I have also been told about instances in which no grant is provided for replanting after clear felling. I would like to hear Coillte's side of the story. It seems that if an individual involved in a partnership with Coillte is not in a position to engage in replanting, Coillte offers him or her a measly €400 an acre to take over the site. Is that true? If so, why are such people not entitled to receive the market value?

I would like to return to the question of Coillte's people maintaining contact with people who have engaged with it through solicitors. I know this matter has been covered already. At the same time as Coillte's solicitors engage with the solicitors of people who have been involved in partnerships with it, Coillte continues to carry on individual dealings with them. I am not happy with the clarification that was given when this issue was raised earlier. One would imagine that if two individuals had solicitors working on their behalf and negotiating with each other, everything would have to go through those solicitors. I would not expect Coillte to go behind the backs of solicitors to deal with people on an individual basis.

I would like to ask about the markets. Deputy Penrose has said that when Deputy Cahill asked a question earlier, he knew the answer. While we have targets as part of our plan to plant 8,000 ha each year, the long-term nature of the development of this project means that it will take a long time to come to fruition. How are markets going to be satisfied in the meantime? If we start hitting the 8,000 ha target from this year on, leaving thinnings aside it will take 20 years for us to see the material that is being planted at the moment making an input or coming onto the market. Given that we are talking about a 20-year span, how are we going to satisfy the markets?

I apologise for leaving, but I have to vote. I hope to be back before the witnesses answer my questions. If not, I will see them in the transcript.