P J Sheehan (Cork South West, Fine Gael)

I am disappointed that the Government has chosen to deal with the Forestry (Amendment) Bill 2009 with indecent haste. It is always said that rushed legislation is bad legislation. There are many Members of this House who would like to contribute to the debate on this Bill. However, this will not be possible given a guillotine has been applied to it. This emergency legislation was drafted last week and is set to pass all Stages within a few hours. This is not proper governance.

When was the need for this legislation notified to the Minister of State's Department and by whom? What is the need for this emergency legislation if Coillte has been compliant to date? Could the Minister of State not have waited for the proposed forestry Bill, promised for the past four or five years? Where is the fire? The Minister of State has told the House the purpose of the Bill is to reform and update the legislative framework relating to forestry to support the development of a modern forestry sector that enshrines the principles of sustainable forestry management and protection of the environment.

The Bill will also allow for change of land use from forestry to other sustainable uses and to provide a statutory basis for forest service guidelines and forest management plans. What is the point of the Bill if we do not have a legislative framework to support the development of a modern forestry sector? Where is the long promised forestry Bill? Does the tabling of this Bill also mean that it is unlikely the forestry Bill will be introduced during the lifetime of this Dáil? Can the Minister of State guarantee this House that all borrowings by Coillte during the past 10 years complied with existing legislation? I am suspicious about the timing and rushed nature of this Bill.

Coillte recently presented its 2008 annual report to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and stated that it has been, since the middle of this year, in the process of restructuring its finances. My suspicion is that one of our hallowed financial institutions discovered, during the negotiations for this restructuring, a flaw in the statutory conditions under which Coillte operated. Hundreds of thousands of euro have been paid to auditors and legal advisers during the past 20 years. Did they ever raise this question and if not, why not? They have been paid professional fees to certify that the company's accounts are in compliance with the law and that taxpayers' money has been fully accounted for.

With regard to the deficit in the pension funds, has Coillte concluded negotiations about the deficit in the pension scheme? Are any of these increased borrowings being used to fund the deficit? I would like the Minister of State, in his reply, to state how the figure of €400 million was arrived at. Was this figure proposed by Coillte or decided by the Department?

Fine Gael has tabled the amendment that temporary borrowings should be limited to 25% of the statutory borrowing limit set out in the Bill. The fact that temporary borrowings amount to almost 70% of the statutory limit shows how this legislation was flouted. Fine Gael has also tabled an amendment that all temporary borrowings should be recorded in the annual report for that year to provide proper governance of Coillte and to ensure such irregular situations can never arise again and that all these agencies are within their statutory borrowing limits.

I note from the 2008 annual report that there has been no reduction in the directors' fees and emoluments. Will the Minister of State provide a guarantee to the House that a reduction will be reported in the 2009 report? I am concerned that employment levels in Coillte have remained fairly static in the past ten years. It employs approximately 1,200 people. Much contract work has been abandoned to the private sector and Coillte has taken a role in processing and manufacturing from the private sector. I want to see these increased borrowings targeted at creating sustainable employment.

Regarding the role of Coillte, I am reminded of what Mr. Nigel Henderson said: "The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit." I am concerned there is much about this Bill that is shady. If we do not have a proper debate on this Bill then these suspicions will remain. I would like to quote Professor Sara Ebenreck, an American writer on land use policy and values. She said: "Trees outstrip most people in the extent and depth of their work for the public good". I am not sure that the public good is being served by the enacting of this legislation here today in an hour and a half.

See this speech in context