Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)

The Bill seeks the permission of the House to afford to Coillte the opportunity to increase its statutory borrowing requirement from €101.5 million to €400 million. In his Second Stage speech, the Minister of State pointed out that inflation alone would allow an increase in the borrowing limit to €182.5 million. This is based on inflating the €101.5 million limit in 1988 by Ireland's inflation rate up to October 2009. Will the Minister of State give us a more detailed analysis of that assertion? Coillte's borrowings to the end of 1988 are €161.2 million and it has approval to borrow up to €260 million under sections 24(1) and (2) of the Forestry Act 1988.

The Minister of State gave a good overview of Coillte's workings, the direction it wants to take in corporate planning and the working groups established to review its operations. There was no mention, however, of the pensions deficit, a fundamental aspect of the company's operations, or the chief executive officer's and the board's remunerations. There are also questions surrounding a Forestry Stewardship Council report which indicted some aspects of Coillte's operations. The Labour Party would be reluctant to support any mechanism to allow for an increase in a company's borrowing requirements unless there is some degree of transparency in its operations. The Minister of State's Second Stage speech did not sufficiently address these matters.

The company's reports and accounts also do not address these issues. When Coillte attended the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in October, one got the impression everything was rosy in the garden. There were, however, some difficulties for ancillary firms such as Mediate and others with the downturn in the construction industry and this was reflected in their results. What is the future for these firms? I do not see enough reporting back to this House on how these operations will proceed and their individual financial positions. Is the new borrowing requirement to facilitate any of these offshoot companies? What will the nature of their financial position be as a result of this amending legislation? Before the House is requested to up Coillte's borrowing requirement, it requires more information as to how it does business.

People tend to look favourably on Coillte's operations because of the recreational and amenity value of its work. I have benefited from them myself in the Ballyhouras and there is a certain pride in how Coillte has developed amenities well. With the Copenhagen summit agenda, there is the political consideration of the role of forestry in reducing or offsetting CO2 emissions. Will the increase in permissible borrowing go towards facilitating this process? If so, will Coillte have a significant role in that process?

I would also like the Minister of State to address the issue of the role of the Forestry Stewardship Council. It is hoped, given the 2006 report and the audit under way, that there would be significant improvement in corporate social responsibility and the role of corporate governance in respect of how Coillte performs its functions. Fundamentally, we need a little more transparency in regard to the operations of Coillte. While we all believe that it is a force to do good, there are aspects of its operation which, from time to time, leave doubts in one's mind. Were the agency to be a little more transparent there would be a great deal more goodwill towards measures such as this.

See this speech in context