Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I bring to the attention of those present that witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to a committee. This means that witnesses have a full defence in any defamation action arising out of anything said at a committee meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed by the Chair to cease giving evidence. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard. They are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, within reason, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity.

Witnesses who give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts, and they may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to publication by witnesses outside the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.

The second session is on the topic of farm partnerships with the Coillte Group. The committee will hear from Mr. Donnacha Anhold, Mrs. Geraldine Corcoran, Mr. John Rice, Mr. John King and Ms Sinéad King. The opening statement has been circulated to members and is taken as read. I invite Mr. Anhold to make opening remarks of five minutes, before moving to questions and answers.

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members of the committee for affording me the opportunity to speak here today. I am a practising solicitor and principal of Carter Anhold and Co. Solicitors. I was requested to speak today on the issue of Coillte farm partnerships from the perspective of the farmer on behalf of a number of Coillte farm partners but particularly two farmers who are here today, namely, Mrs. Geraldine Corcoran, and Mr. John King.

Our firm represents a large group of forestry farmers who are engaged in partnership agreements with Coillte. While I may speak here today in general terms, when I speak specifically it will be only in relation to Mrs. Corcoran's matter.

For the purposes of clarity, and for the purpose of the committee, there are some Coillte farm partners who are engaged in either arbitration or possible potential litigation with Coillte, and any general references I make I want to say, for the purposes of clarity, will not be referring to those particular matters.

What are the Coillte-led farm partnerships currently in existence which farmers such as Mrs. Corcoran and Mr. King are involved in? In and around the years 1998 to 2005, Coillte advertised, published a brochure and approached farmers to enter into commercial relationships. What was on offer at the time, in the main, was: farmers retain 100% ownership of their lands; advance payment of €635 per hectare were to be made; a forest premium paid by the forestry service for 15 to 20 years; the farmer to receive 80% of thinning profits; and the farmer to receive 55% of clearfell profits. While 55% of the clearfell profits appeared attractive to the farmers at the time, the brochure was silent on the issue of the farmers having to replant after clearfell cultivation. We understand this obligation to replant was a standard condition attaching to all felling licences at that time under the 1946 Forestry Act and under subsequent Forestry Acts. Coillte was then to manage the plantations for the term of the agreement, and the farmers were to take a back seat and collect payments or profits as agreed.

Many of the potential farmers at the time, including Mrs. Corcoran and Mr. King, felt that Coillte as a semi-State body would be trustworthy, reliable, dependable and professional. This placed Coillte as an over and above choice for forestry farmers, such as the two farmers who are here today compared with other private operators operating in this space at the time.

What agreements were entered into at that time? There was a lease created in favour of Coillte over the forestry lands, generally for a period of 40 to 42 years. Alongside this and parallel to this lease agreement was a farm partnership agreement. This was effectively a commercial agreement between Coillte and the individual forestry farmer such as Mrs. Corcoran, and Mr. King. The main characteristics of these partnership agreements in short were as follows: Coillte was also to be granted a licence over the farmer's lands, contemporaneous with the lease; Coillte and the partner to engage jointly in active commercial management of the forestry with commercial management to be conducted in the best interests of the joint venture parties on sound commercial profit-making principles; periodic management meetings to be held, to consult on the condition, maintenance, progress and growth of the crop; in terms of grants, Coillte was to retain the afforestation grant and farmers to get the premium grant; Coillte was to pay the partner 80% of the thinning profits by way of an annuity and Coillte then to retain 20% balance of those thinning profits; farmers to get 55% of the clearfell profits; and there was a first option created, in favour of Coillte, to purchase the forestry lands if the farmer ever wanted to sell.

At the commencement of these farm partnership matters things seemed to be operating well and there was engagement with the forestry farm partners. However, issues began to arise and mostly within five years of the new plantations. The bigger issues which have arisen to date, and of which the farmers wish to make the committee aware, are as follows. First, after year 1, periodic management meetings rarely occurred and in some instances did not occur at all plus after that farmers got tick-box forms sent to them in the post for completion, signing and return. Little or no physical consultations took place on the ground.

Second, thinnings, as many people know, typically occur in new forests within years 15 to 18, depending on the condition of the forest. Thinnings sometimes took place and in some instances thinnings have not occurred at all. Where thinnings took place, some farmers still await payment and some are waiting for a period of five years. Some farmers received thinning profits but no details were provided to the farmers or farm partners on the volume of timber removed from the forestry, the price achieved at the sawmill gate, the name of the sawmill sold to, how the best price was achieved for the said time, or details or particulars about costs. We have, on occasion, both raised questions about these details. Coillte has classed this as commercially sensitive information and we did not get the information we sought.

I will outline the three main issues that concern Mrs. Corcoran. First, she has an area of broadleaves and larch on her farm, which has been neglected in the main, is in need of better management and is meeting its full potential at the moment. Second, Mrs. Corcoran received a statement from Coillte in 2018 forecasting thinning profits but with no details on the breakdown of costs or how the profits were achieved. Mrs. Corcoran has tried to contact Coillte to obtain these details but it has not been provided. Only one management meeting appears to have taken place so far in 2015 but no minutes of that meeting were provided to Mrs. Corcoran. Third, a section of Mrs. Corcoran's forestry, which is no fault of anyone's, has suffered from ash dieback and it has died off but replaced by an Alder crop which Mrs. Corcoran feels is of low or poor commercial value. The issue here is that there was no consultation with Mrs. Corcoran in advance.

Again, the main tenet of what is arising here is a lack of engagement with farm partners. There is a situation where the farm partners feel left out in the cold and there are issues affecting their forestry, which are not being addressed on the ground. The farm partners call on Coillte to exercise candour in relation to the issues that have occurred and to accept, deal with and remediate or repair them. One thing they do want to say is that nothing here is beyond remediation or repair and can be dealt with. However, many of forestry farmers are in their 60s, 70s or 80s and they rely on these forestry areas as part of their pensions or overall retirement plan so need these issues dealt with urgently. What we are asking here for is clear engagement, open and transparent communication, and accountability to its commercial partners.

While these are somewhat private arrangements or agreements with farm partners, they are arrangements that have been dealt with by a semi-State body. Again, what is being asked for is engagement, upfront discussion, openness and transparency in relation to the affairs of Coillte and its farmers, and dealing with farmers on a face-to-face basis.

I thank the committee members for their time and allowing me to speak. I welcome any questions.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I go to other committee members, the first question I want to ask is if farmers surrendered their own premium to get the premium from the forestry service. The farmers were not getting the Government premium, for want of a better term.

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

The farmers will not get the afforestation grant but the premium is paid to the farmers.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For forestry services, the farmers were getting the Government premium.

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

Yes.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will allow Senator Daly to take the Chair in a moment. Mr. Anhold said the situation can be rectified. I find it hard to see how that will be done because thinning and clear fells have taken place on some of these estates. My understanding is that no weigh dockets have been provided.

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

That is correct.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How will it be shown retrospectively what quantity of timber was taken and what was the price for the timber at that particular time? Some of this is going back a number of years. I have talked to some of the forest owners. I find it hard to comprehend how a product could be taken off the land in circumstances where there is a contract in place and no weigh docket given to the owner of a plantation. I find that hard to understand. I am not adjudicating now because it is not my place to do so. However, I find it hard to understand how a company can do thinning or a clear fell, take away the product in circumstances where there is an agreement in place for 80% and 55%, respectively, of the profits to fall to the farmers without showing the farmer what has been taken away. I am a dairy farmer. I get a docket each day telling me what milk has left the farm. The price is determined. The same applies in respect of cattle. They are weighed at a factory, a mart or wherever else. I cannot get my head around this. I do not take myself as being completely dense but I cannot understand how a product can be removed without a docket to show what product has been removed. I cannot get my head around that.

There is a vote in the Dáil Chamber. I know Senator Boyhan is anxious to ask a question. I will ask Senator Daly to take the Chair.

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

Does the Cathaoirleach want us to wait until he comes back before we answer his questions?

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, please.

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

The Deputies have to leave to attend a vote. Perhaps the witnesses will comment on the Cathaoirleach's points on his return. He would like to hear their responses.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

I thank the Senator for his questions. He asked about arbitration. It is an option, but it is a contentious process. There is a legal process that needs to be invoked. It takes time and costs money on both sides. It should be a last resort. The farmers want somebody to talk to and someone who will deal with them. Farming is a physical activity. All aspects of farming, including forestry farming, are dealt with on a face-to-face basis. People need to meet each other and talk. That is nature. It is true in timber and forestry. Some parts of forestry will thrive and others will not. That is a natural process. It takes management. That requires sometime to meet the farmers and tell them what is being done to repair and manage the situation and make it good again. The farmers feel left out in that respect. The legal process should be a process of last resort in many respects. The reason I have been asked by farmers, including the two farmers in attendance, Ms Corcoran and Mr. King, to speak for them is because they want more engagement. They want this process to work.

It can work, but it just needs more effort and time.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Am I right in saying the group has not ruled out the arbitration route, but is not going down that route at present?

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

Arbitration has not been booked for these two farmers, yet, but they can take that option if they want.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Anhold is their legal adviser.

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

Correct.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thus, he would set out arbitration as one option.

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

Yes, it is an option.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What does Mr. Anhold want this committee to do to assist him and support Ms Corcoran and Mr. King? What is the ask?

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

First, with regard to Ms Corcoran's question in particular, more active engagement and management is needed to bring her forestry back up to where it needs to be. Second, the big issue is about the thinning profits from this forestry. A partnership may involve two people, a group, two entities or whatever the case the may be. Active engagement and open transparency is required. If one partner does not get the full details from the other as to the make-up of the commercial arrangement, that is, what is happening, what the activities are; what money came in or out or how the partner got to that price, it breeds suspicion, anxiety and tension. Ms Corcoran got a statement which set out the price achieved and the costs and profits; that was it. When she requested more details, it went nowhere.

Ms Geraldine Corcoran:

I was not even paid. I am due premiums and I never got anything. I own 80% of the thinnings and I got nothing.

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

We want details.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would Mr. Anhold be in a position to quantify what he thinks is due to the people here?

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

We cannot quantify it, because we have no details.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does he have any sense of it?

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

No, I do not.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thus, Mr. Anhold has no sense of what he might be due.

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

I do not. Well, we have an idea. The timber-----

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are there other similar plantations for which there would be records of what was taken off them?

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

Ms Corcoran does not have details of the volume that left her forestry.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There may be another plantation of the same age that has been thinned. The owner would have managed it and have records of what was taken off. Surely, an arbitrator would take that into account, as an estimate of what volume left the plantation?

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

If a matter goes to arbitration, there would be an expert report which would assist in that. However, Ms Corcoran is not at that stage and has not engaged in that process. She asks to be told what volume left the forestry, where it went and how the best price was achieved.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the question I asked before I left for the vote. It defies comprehension that products can be taken off a farm and the owner of the land not be given a weigh sheet to show what volume left. I cannot get my head around it.

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

We suspect the timber went to a sawmill. We were not told so. If the timber went to a sawmill, the mill would have been able to provide the detail of what went volume went through its gates. Those details have not been provided. The answer is commercially sensitive information.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How can-----

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

May I wrap up?

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise. That is my fault.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Cathaoirleach is entitled to speak and I thank him for his assistance.

Arbitration is an option. It is important Mr. Anhold's clients fully understand the issues around arbitration and what one buys into and may commit to. Before the Cathaoirleach came back, I noted that counties Tipperary and Galway have the majority of the 630 groups involved in this partnership. It is interesting. I am astounded by what has happened, but there is always another side to the argument and we need to hear it. I recommend the committee engages with Coillte to see how we can tease this out. I do not like to see individuals having to go public, but they have had to and it is honourable. I do not like to see them having to come in here and set out their stall, for a company such as Coillte to deal with. It is not a good day for Coillte, from my reading of the situation, but I do not have all the facts. What, in simple terms, would Mr. Anhold like this committee to do in terms of political follow-through or with our contacts in the political forums?

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

Coillte is a semi-State body. The ask is for engagement and provision of details to its farm partners when those are requested.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the ask for our committee to make contact with Coillte to ask it to engage with the group?

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

Yes.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will finish on this-----

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

This is a face-to-face, physical practice. Coillte should go to meet the farmers on the ground and try to figure out how the situation can be improved.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support that. I have no issue with the suggestion. It is right. However, I wish to crystallise the ask. Has Ms Corcoran had much engagement with public representatives in her area?

Ms Geraldine Corcoran:

We have tried to go public on this, because Coillte refuses to communicate. There is no transparency. The annual meetings did not take place. Coillte sent a pre-filled, tick-box form which required my signature. We were supposed to meet on an annual basis but we did not meet. I am locked out of my land. Coillte put a lock on my land. It never gave me a key. Coillte has it for 28 years and I have to climb the gate to get into my own land. Coillte also took some ash. It was supposed to destroy the root and now the roots are sprouting. They should have been destroyed and removed, but they are sprouting. There is no breakdown on the thinnings. My thinnings went. I told Coillte it was not to go in until it removed the roots. Coillte left some dead ash. It did thinnings in 2016; the machines were there. It took the ash that had symptoms of ash dieback, but it did not remove the dead ash in the fields. I got nothing. I did not get a report of what went. It wrapped, bathed and transported the ash to Medite in Clonmel, which Coillte owns. I have a partner. I was supposed to be involved in all of this, but I was not. I own 80% of the thinnings.

I told Coillte it was not to go in to do the second thinning in 2021. Coillte rang me in May to say it would do the second thinning. The dead ash had been there since 2016. Coillte had a grant and a felling licence to remove the ash, but never touched it. Coillte came back in 2021; I said it could not take thinnings unless it removed the dead ash. That was in May. Coillte went on to the land in September, without my knowledge. It did not contact me or my solicitor. It went on to the land and did the thinnings. When I rang the supervisor to find out why Coillte did not take the ash, he said Coillte had to do a commercial evaluation on the trees, to see what damage had been done. These trees were dead in 2016. That happened in September 2021. Coillte did a commercial evaluation and I got no word until the following July. It took Coillte that long. I got - again - a pre-ticked-box form, which asked for my signature to apply for a grant to remove my dead ash. The ash had been dead since 2016, when a grant had been given. Coillte was fully aided at that time to remove the ash and replant, but it did not do so. Thus, I did not sign the form. Coillte has not spoken to me. What will Coillte put in to replace the ash, when it takes it away? Whatever will be put in will take 40, 50 or 60 years to mature. My lease is up in 36 years. I cannot understand it. Coillte makes all the decisions and does not involve any partners.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was helpful of Ms Corcoran to set out her experience.

Ms Sin?ad King:

I will back up Ms Corcoran. The forms she spoke about are annual partnership forms. It is said we should meet in person or speak on the phone or via Internet about those forms. The in-person calls have not happened. More face-to-face contact is proposed for the future, but those calls have not happened for the past 20 years.

I do not think that is strong enough. I think the arbitration clause needs to be removed from the Coillte contracts going forward. Also, in 2017, there was an Oireachtas questioning of Coillte and afterwards an internal review of Coillte was performed by KPMG. One of the findings of the review was that Coillte should present annual financial statements to each farmer. In the following years, that has not happened. Can it be questioned on that? We have no faith or trust in Coillte. The Senator mentioned face-to-face meetings. That is not good enough. Coillte has failed us at every turn up to this point.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will finish with a question for Mr. Anhold. Was Coillte aware that the witnesses were coming here today?

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

No.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Did they make Coillte aware?

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

No.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The witnesses do not think it was aware.

Ms Sin?ad King:

No.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Daly has ten minutes.

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

I will not need ten minutes, because I think we are all on the same page here today. My line of questioning follows on from the witnesses' comments at the start, and from the points raised by Senator Boyhan. I ask the following question with the greatest of respect, and I am on the witnesses' side, but in phrasing the question it might come across as otherwise. It is a devil's advocate type of question. Mr. Anhold is a solicitor. He is sitting with a contract in his hand and he is telling us that there has been a breach of contract. I am prompted to ask why the witnesses are even here. I know they want to avoid arbitration, but Mr. Anhold is telling us that in his legal opinion, that the contract has not been honoured. Not honouring a contract is breaking the law, basically. We are not a court of law. Senator Boyhan has asked what the witnesses are asking of us and what they think we can do. We will do whatever we think will help and we will pursue the matter as far as we can. However, I am almost intrigued that we have a solicitor sitting in front of us who is telling us that he has a contract in his hand that is not being honoured, which amounts to a breach of contract. I am not of Mr. Anhold's profession, but in my opinion that is a breach of the law. I am tempted to ask Mr. Anhold why the witnesses are here.

I have a couple of other questions before Mr. Anhold responds to that. Is there an association or representative body for Coillte farm partnerships?

Ms Sin?ad King:

No.

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

So it is every man or woman for themselves?

Ms Sin?ad King:

I should add to that that arbitration has to be carried out for single entities. We cannot group together, which makes us weaker.

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

So the farm partnerships have not grouped together and do not have a representative body or an association?

Ms Sin?ad King:

We cannot group together. There is a clause in the contract stipulating that.

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

I know that Mr. Anhold is here representing Ms Corcoran and Mr. King. Have many more people contacted him about the issue? When you have a problem, especially with a State body, and word gets out about it, other people seem to gravitate towards you, knowing that there is strength in numbers. Does Mr. Anhold know of many more people, who have contracts with Coillte or similar partnerships or arrangements, who have issues?

Finally, was Mr. Anhold involved from the start? Did a legal professional look over the contracts before they were actually signed? Were they verified as being legally sound? Going back to the Chair's points, is the arrangement for the removal of thinnings specifically mentioned in the contract? Who is supposed to monitor that? It sounds to me like it is a contract with the devil, whereby the farmers are promised that they are getting 80% of the profits from thinnings, but Coillte will decide what the 80% relates to, basically. I agree with the Cathaoirleach. Hindsight is a great thing and given the problems that the witnesses have, it is easier to say that, but I if I was signing that contract I would insist on a third party, a monitor or somebody to verify the contract was legally sound. He who pays the piper calls the tune. If you let the man who is paying the piper call the tune, it is going to be his tune, not yours.

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

To answer the Senator's first question, I did not mention the phrase "breach of contract". That is not what I said.

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

I am not saying Mr. Anhold said that. I said I would call that a breach of contract.

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

That is not the issue I am here to talk about. I did not mention that in my opening address at all. It is not that I am here to talk about litigation. What I am here to talk about is engagement. As I have already mentioned, I was not referring to any of the farmers that are engaged in the litigation process. The witnesses here are farmers who have not engaged in arbitration, or have not done so yet. What we are talking about here is engagement. We cannot force somebody to talk to us or engage with us. Given that Coillte is a semi-State body, we are requesting that this committee asks Coillte to talk to and engage with the farmers to deal with the issues that are out there and to address that lack of communication and detail. That is what is being requested here. It is outside of-----

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

I did not say that Mr. Anhold said there was a breach of contract. I said that in my opinion, from what Mr. Anhold has told us, there is a contract that is not being honoured by one side.

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

That is correct.

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

To me, that is a breach of contract. If I had a contract with somebody and I was in breach of it, they would find a way, through the legal profession, of making sure I engaged with them. Why is that not an option if there is what I would consider to be a breach of contract, and has been? Ms Corcoran has said that she is owed money and she has not received it. The contract stipulates that she should get 80% of the profits from her thinnnings. She is to be told what volume of thinnings are taken. She has not been told. Without me seeing the contract and from what I am hearing here, it is not being honoured in any way.

Ms Geraldine Corcoran:

Coillte has breached it.

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

There are other avenues to pursue. I am not saying the witnesses should pursue them, and perhaps it is not the right direction to go in. The question that I asked was why the witnesses are here if there are other avenues to pursue for something that looks so black-and-white, from the witnesses' perspective.

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

As I said earlier, the reason we are here is that arbitration or the contentious legal process takes time. It is lengthy and expensive and so on and so forth. Farmers often do not want to get involved in an extra process which costs a lot of money and can take a lot of time. These are urgent issues that are affecting farmers in their 60s, 70s and 80s, who want them dealt with straightaway. They want somebody to talk to them and deal with these issues now. Obviously, it would always be the situation that litigation or contentious legal matters should be avoided at all costs. All other aspects should be looked at first before getting to that point.

On the contracts alone, many of them are old and date back to perhaps the early 2000s. They might not be what would normally be provided for today. I have only come into the matters recently, since they got contentious in the last few years. To answer the Senator's question, legal advice was taken by the farm partners at the time the contracts were signed, or at least another law firm would have assisted them with the contracts. That being said, a lot of the time issues only arise when the farmer becomes aware of how the issues are arising. The farmers want to deal with them in advance of going to litigation. Parties should always talk and try to resolve their issues, difficulties and differences before heading in that direction. That is really what the farmers are looking for. It is the reason they are here. They are asking for engagement, communication, openness, transparency and details in relation to the deals. I take on board what the Senator is saying. There is a method of forcing that, but there is always a better way, another way or a different way. There is always a way for parties to talk to each other. That is what should always be investigated, looked at or searched for in advance of going to contentious matters, arbitration, the legal process or whatever it is.

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

In that vein, what attempts or avenues have been taken to try to get this communication? What requests have been made? How many have been made? How often and through what channels have requests been made for communication from Coillte?

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

Ms Corcoran has made her own requests to Coillte and has communicated with the office to try to get the details in relation to thinnings, and they have not been provided.

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

How frequently and for how long has she been making those requests? Does she have any records of how often she has been making requests?

Ms Geraldine Corcoran:

Coillte has the best solicitors, not that I am running down Mr. Anhold. It has the best solicitors in the country and only the richest of people could afford them. They keep kicking the can down the road. Every letter that is sent from Mr. Anhold's office is just sent back. It is just ridiculous what is being sent back.

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

Does Ms Corcoran have a paper trail of her requests for communication? Does she have proof and evidence that she has not been getting the response desired?

Ms Geraldine Corcoran:

Absolutely. Coillte simply will not communicate. It is just in denial. It makes all the decisions. I do not know why, but there is no urgency to meet partners or to address our concerns. Representatives will not meet us. We are sent pre-ticked boxes for us to sign for the grant. I have to get the grant for Coillte to spend it on my plantation, then it does what it likes. I am completely locked out. It is a partner. I have documents with me setting out how Coillte was supposed to manage it to the best of its ability.

It has not agreed to anything but has blocked us out completely. We trusted it because it is a semi-State body. If we gave this to somebody who lived nearby, we would be very conscious and, as was said, we would be looking over our shoulder and looking after things but Coillte staff are the professionals. They are the ones that have the expertise on how to plant and look after trees. I supplied the land and Coillte was to look after my trees. I did nothing wrong. I signed in respect of the land but I did not say Coillte could take over and own my land. The organisation is acting as if I sold it the land and is locking me out. It makes all the decisions. Coillte staff do not meet me or any of our partners.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Deputy McNamara staying?

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

I am staying.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will allow Senator Daly into the Chair.

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

We can pair, presumably.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the voting blocks. I do not mind if we pair. That is fine by me.

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

The Whip is more or less agreed.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is okay. We will pair. That is fine.

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

As Senator Boyhan and the Chair said, we want to get as much information as we can because we will pursue this matter.

Ms Geraldine Corcoran:

Coillte provided a post-harvest report on my timber but not its market value. Timber rocketed in price in 2021 when Coillte took my thinnings but it did not base the costings on that. It based it on the post harvest, five years ago. That is what it based it on. I would like to ask Coillte what it is basing the forecasts on.

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

I have a number of questions. During his presentation, Mr. Anhold outlined why his clients entered into the partnership with Coillte, which was because it was a semi-State, was reputable and all the rest of it. It sounds very like the rationale posited approximately six months ago for Gresham House entering into this partnership agreement with Coillte. How did Ms Corcoran, or Ms King or Mr. King, feel when they heard that Gresham House was entering this big agreement with Coillte and was being talked up as such a fantastic expert in management of forest estates?

Ms Sin?ad King:

We do not think Gresham House's interest is forestry. We do not think it is a coincidence that Gresham House has been offered 12,000 ha of land and the amount of farm partnership land is 12,000 ha. We think Gresham House's interest might be in solar panels or wind energy because it is not interested in forestry grants or any of the trees that come with forestry. This is fine but that was not our initial interest in the land. Our initial purpose was forestry. We have not signed up to wind energy or solar panels. If this is the way the Government, or another country or private enterprise, will get wind energy or solar farms into this country, we are not happy about it because it is not clear and upfront.

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

To be clear, as I understand it, a lease for a particular period is involved. It is not a 999-year lease or something like that. I presume it is for the lifespan of Sitka spruce or other trees. It would not make sense to install wind turbines if there was a lease for 30, 40 or 50 years.

Ms Sin?ad King:

A lot of the leases are up. Each farming agreement differs. Some are for 20 years and others for 35; it depends what contract was signed. The forestry laws changed in 2014. Initially, we were not informed of the law whereby we would have to replant with forestry once the contracts were up. We were told, as was my father in his case, that the land could be put back as farming land. We know the names of the people who told us that. We can give the committee that. There is a law that states forestry land has to be put back into forestry, but that was changed in 2014 to state it could be used for any energy source, including wind energy or solar energy. That is not in the initial contracts or agreements we signed. We were completely unaware of this.

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

For example, if Coillte was to look to get a wind energy or solar energy company in, presumably it would be contrary to the terms of the lease. Ms King may or may not know the answer to that. Surely, the lease is for a specific purpose and for a specific crop.

Ms Sin?ad King:

That law was updated in 2014 so-----

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

Yes, but the lease was not. The lease is just between the farmer and the other party. In other words, what I am hearing from the witnesses is they are afraid Coillte will sell on a leasehold on their land, such that-----

Ms Sin?ad King:

Yes, buy out the land. The other issue is the value of the land. I am not sure what the value of the land should be but Coillte has really undervalued the land. It is offering any of the farm partnerships it is buying out way lower than the value of the land. Coillte is either paying for the land or the trees; it is not paying for both. It is not giving farmers the correct amount for the land. Trust has completely broken down. We are expected to sign up to another agreement with Coillte, Gresham House or whoever. We do not have faith in any big institution like that now. Based on our 20 or 30 years of experience with Coillte, why would we?

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

I am not suggesting the witnesses should have. I am a barrister, which is in my declaration of interests etc, but I will speak from a personal perspective. The former Chief Justice has talked about the barrier expense is to litigation in Ireland. People either have to have nothing, in which case it does not really matter because there is nothing to go after, or they have so much money it does not matter. If they are anywhere in between, they cannot really afford litigation.

I have found that farmers are particularly reluctant to engage in litigation. Obviously, they have land in their name and if litigation goes belly up - people could have the best case in the world but they cannot ever be certain, no more than it is certain in any walk of life what will happen - their farms are marked for costs. As a practising solicitor, does Mr. Anhold accept that farmers, as a cohort and grouping in society, and landowners in general, are very reluctant to engage in litigation?

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

Absolutely. Many farmers come in my door on a regular basis, week by week. Farmers are extremely reluctant to engage in any form of litigation, particularly because, at the end of the day, they have a farm. They might have inherited that farm down through generations of the family and want to keep it for the generations that will come after them. If that litigation fails, inevitably that farm is up for grabs by the party against which they failed. There is always an underlying fear for many farmers if litigation does not go well. As we know, any case can turn in any direction because there are many twists in turns in litigation once it starts, and it is difficult or impossible to predict the end. If things do not go according to plan, even if a particular farmer may not have a lot of money in the bank, so to speak, because they are running their farms on what are small margins, and if they lose that case, inevitably their farm will be under threat. The Deputy is correct in his assertion.

I find that even where farmers have very many issues they have difficulties with, or matters on which they are not being dealt with fairly, and when they have a case, claim, right or whatever the case may be, they are still reluctant to take action. They are afraid that the other party may not work with them to try to bring that arrangement through to its end or follow it through. These involve vital funds they need to run their farms. If they take an action and the action is lost, they are extremely fearful that their farms, or part of them, could be lost. It is their livelihood that goes with it.

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

In Mr. Anhold's experience, would he describe Coillte as reluctant to engage in litigation?

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

It is difficult to say. Overall, where there is a lack of engagement, you are fighting a constant battle. You are in the fire and that is that, but that is the nature of contentious business-----

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

It is, in fairness.

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

-----and litigations.

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

What is the nature of these agreements that were signed? What are they called? Are they called partnership agreements?

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

Partnership agreements. There was a leasing contemporaneous with the lease that was a farm partnership agreement. These are essentially commercial agreements.

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

Was it set up as kind of a joint venture?

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

Yes, as a joint partnership.

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

Solicitors are in partnership.

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

Quite often, yes.

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

Is it unusual in a partnership to turn round to your partner and say that you are not going to tell them something because it is commercially sensitive?

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

I would have thought it highly unusual. A partnership is what a partnership is. Two or three partners, or whatever, come together and are open and frank in discussions about money coming in and going out. They discuss the list of costs and profits, and what they can do to improve matters.

Mr. John King:

We were in the partnership, which signed that agreement and were not aware that was going to happen. There was the clear understanding that it would be a complete partnership and not a dictatorship, which it has turned out to be.

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

I hope it does not turn out that way for Gresham House. Well, I do not really care. I suspect it will be in a better position to fight its corner than landholders taking on the might of a semi-State. I have a couple more questions. Ms Corcoran said she could not get access to her land and it was locked.

Ms Geraldine Corcoran:

It was locked. There was a lock on it and I had no key.

Ms Sin?ad King:

I will add that we requested the key on our annual partnership report. We have proof on those annual partnership reports that they have given us keys, but they changed the locks instantly.

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

They gave you the key and then changed the lock?

Ms Sin?ad King:

Yes.

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

I will comment that there are leasehold agreements in place. A lease is a lease.

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

There are, but sometimes there are provisions around the right to access the property with a certain amount of notice. Are there any such provisions?

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

In days gone by there used to be a person on the ground, who was a man or woman called a forester. That would be the person you could call on to say you wanted to go in on a particular day and were meeting at the gate. Obviously, a lock could be put on the gate to stop third parties, livestock, or wildlife from making their way in. However, if there is a lock on the gate and everyone has a key, then access is not or should not be an issue.

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

I will come back to Ms. Corcoran in a moment. Is Ms King specifically saying that when she asked for access, she was given a key and then the lock was changed?

Ms Sin?ad King:

Yes. We can prove that. That is why we keep asking for a key. It is in a few of our annual reports. Why would we ask for a key if the lock had not been changed? We have proof.

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

I do not understand why you would give somebody a key and then change the lock.

Ms Corcoran was answering about right of access. She had asked for access.

Ms Geraldine Corcoran:

Absolutely. When I asked for any information, I was told it was confidential. I have asked for several different things over the years and have been told it is confidential. I do not know how it can be confidential when I am a partner. They just never recognised me or any of the others as partners.

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

Ms Corcoran said it was her thinnings that were brought to the Medite plant.

Ms Geraldine Corcoran:

Yes, the first one that had symptoms of ash dieback. They wrapped it, bathed it and transported it. Maybe they did not have enough left in the grant to take out the root. The roots are sprouting again. I do not know how we are going to eradicate ash if they leave the root sprouting and dead ash there since 2016. I have been farming all of my life. If you have cattle that get TB, you are locked up and the animals put down. It is the same with foot and mouth. However, seemingly when it comes to the ash in this country it does not matter. The tree is left standing. There was no excuse for it. The machines were on-site. They were there in 2016 for ash removal. They had the grant and it was fully funded. Now, they are looking for a grant to remove it all of these years later. It does not make sense.

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

In general, does Ms Corcoran know where other thinnings were brought?

Ms Geraldine Corcoran:

I have no idea. I rang several places. I rang sawmills. I tried to contact lorry drivers. I just cannot get answers. I got the answers from the man who was in charge of harvesting. He had a report every evening to send to Coillte. He works for Coillte, so he told me to go back to Coillte to get the answers. He was able to provide a sheet of what was harvested and left my gate every day.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the contract refer specifically to thinnings and where the weight of the thinnings would be determined? It refers to 80% of the profits going to the landowner.

Ms Geraldine Corcoran:

Yes.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does it give a descriptive explanation of how or where the timber will be weighed?

Ms Geraldine Corcoran:

I have no report of any of that.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the contract refer to the timber being weighed?

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

No, in that regard the contracts are minimalist. They very much just refer to the thinning profits. There is no detail in the contract like that set out by the Chair.

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

There are clearly commercial records somewhere in Coillte's possession that would indicate what volume of thinnings were taken off either of Ms Corcoran's properties. They should easily be able to ascertain the profits from those. In a normal partnership that would of course be provided. I am intrigued. While I have concerns about the Gresham House deal, this never occurred to me. Is Ms Corcoran is concerned, based on the agreement she is in, that an attempt will be made to buy out her full interest in the land, and that land will then be the subject matter of the agreement with Gresham House?

Ms Geraldine Corcoran:

Yes.

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

That would be remarkable. I know Coillte answered questions at the time. We are not a court and we cannot in any way replace the courts. It would be good to ask Coillte specifically about its plans with people involved in these partnerships and whether there is any plan to involve Gresham House in those particular lands. Does Coillte come in yearly?

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It comes in on request.

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

I appreciate it has been in.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but issues have been raised this evening. We will discuss that when the committee meets again in private session.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How many farmers is Mr. Anhold representing with regard to people who have contracts with Coillte?

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

A group of between 15 and 20 farmers.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are roughly 600 farmers with these contracts all over the country.

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

So we are told.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Anhold is representing between 15 and 20.

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

Yes.

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

Is Mr. Anhold aware of any others outside the group he is representing that may have issues?

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

I cannot speak really speak about anybody outside the 15 to 20. I cannot enlighten the Senator.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Have there been many cases of arbitration for people who have the contracts?

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

Once arbitration is invoked, a confidentiality clause is normally invoked along with that.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How many have done arbitration? That would not be confidential.

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

A number have done-----

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would 50% of the people with contracts have done it?

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

Possibly.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Possibly, and there is a confidentiality clause there.

Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

There is normally a confidentiality clause invoked along with arbitration. It is cloaked in that and dealt with by that.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will go back to my comments at the start. I do not know how you can have 80% of tenants and 55% of clearfell profits without weighing the product. I cannot get my head around that. Maybe I am being dense but I cannot get my head around it.

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

That is far from you.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I cannot comprehend that. You take away a product, and you are meant to keep 80% of the profit, but you are not giving any record of the weights. That will most definitely have to be explained.

It is not for me to say, but the committee will discuss what it heard here this evening. It is fair to say that we will be in correspondence with Coillte. A lot of unanswered questions have been raised here.

I would like to thank the witnesses for coming in this evening. The joint committee will next meet in private on Wednesday, 31 May at 5.30 p.m., when it will undertake an examination of issues impacting horse racing in Ireland. As there is no further business, the meeting now stands adjourned.