Michael Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. There are many issues which arise, including those which relate to Coillte and the sale of the trees for which it is responsible. Making flippant comments is not the way to proceed. For a raft of reasons, we have major reservations with regard to how it is proposed to proceed in respect of this matter. The Government and the Minister will state that we grow the trees for sale. We could retort by stating that farmers who raise suckler cows wait until their calves have matured before selling them in order that they might maximise their profits.

The serious issue which arises is whether the sale of Coillte's forests represents a sound economic investment, either now or into the future. In the 1960s, the then Government and the Forestry Service - as it was known at that time - were involved in a major initiative to increase the level of afforestation throughout the country. This was because that level was extremely low. Those involved sought to purchase huge amounts of marginal land and they gave the farmers from whom they eventually purchased it the massive sum of £1 per acre. This is how the State built up the land bank it currently owns. The State benefited enormously from what was done in the 1960s because within five or ten years the land in question was worth huge multiples of the £1 per acre originally paid for it. We must ensure that we know what is going to happen with the land to which I refer.

Since the period 1989 to 1990, the level of private afforestation has increased dramatically. If somebody were to have offered to pay those farmers who became involved in afforestation in 1989 and 1990 a specific amount in respect of their trees when they had matured 20 years later, they would have made an absolute mint. The prospective return on timber at that stage does not even bear relation to the amounts for which they are currently selling thinnings as opposed to mature trees. Based on the evidence of what has happened since decisions taken 24 and almost 40 years ago, there is no way the State can be completely certain that it will get the best bang for its buck in the context of attempting to estimate what it should charge up front for a crop that will be maturing in 50, 60, 70 or 80 years time.

Many issues arise with regard to the replanting of forests and the obligations relating to the lands involved. In the context of what was done in the country's best interests in the 1960s, when land was bought for £1 per acre, and at the end of the 1990s, when farmers planted forests in respect of which they are now obtaining between €15,000 or €16,000 for just the thinnings from each 20-acre crop, the profits that have since accrued could not have been envisaged when the original decisions were taken. Regardless of the number of consultants' reports obtained or of how much the relevant officials go through the books, I am of the view that the Government cannot be absolutely sure that whomever purchases the exclusive rights to the trees on Coillte and other State lands will not reap huge benefits in the future.

There are many matters to which consideration must be given. We must examine the position of the industry at present. We must also consider the position with regard to Coillte lands and public access thereto. Coillte has developed many great walks, amenities, cycleways and recreational areas for the public in its forests. People in rural communities make extensive use of many of these. I was recently contacted by a person who is fortunate enough to own arable land adjacent to one of the walks to which I refer and who sells the products from their dairy farm directly to those who use the walk. This is an example of the benefits which can accrue from the forest walks which Coillte and the State have done a fantastic job in developing over the years.

I take the point made by constituency colleague, Deputy Creed, in respect of Gougane Barra and the forest there. If one walks through that forest, one could not foresee the sawmill companies or those who are going to invest arriving at a huge rate. There are many trees on Coillte lands throughout the country which might not be as mature or as saleable as people might believe when they look at a map detailing the thousands of hectares of such lands. In the context of the sale State assets, it should not be the case that Coillte lands should be sold because they are going to be sold in any event As already stated, that is not an economic argument. In the context of the amounts which the Government has publicised as being attainable, I wonder whether the position has been the subject of serious consideration. If the real costs were taken into account, I am of the view that the amounts eventually obtained will fall far short of the original estimates. This means that those who may purchase Coillte's forests will ultimately make a mint and that the State will be short-changed to a massive degree.

Two issues have arisen in respect of special areas of conservation in the past, namely, those relating to the hen harrier and to the development of wind energy. The relevant EU directive relating to hen harriers, which emerged in 2004, made provision to the effect that an entire region should be designated for these birds and should be closed down completely. The experience to date has been that the planting of trees on particular lands has no impact on hen harriers. Indeed, such plantings create conditions which encourage hen harriers to breed and increase their numbers. The language used by the European Commission and those opposite who occupied the benches on this side of the House in 2004 and 2005 left a great deal to be desired, particularly as the reality was far different to the level of concern that was whipped up.

Coillte is considering developing wind farms on some of its lands and such farms have been developed adjacent to those lands. Everyone is aware of the benefits and profits which can accrue from such developments.

The motion questions whether we should proceed with the proposed sale of the trees on Coillte lands. Previous speakers raised a raft of issues including those relating to Coillte staff and their pensions. I have already referred to what were the perceived benefits when certain decisions were taken 24 or almost 50 years ago and the fact that the actual profits realised have surpassed all expectations by many multiples. If one strips the motion down to brass tacks, then one fact emerges, namely, that 11% of the State's land bank is under Coillte trees. The Government is faced with a decision as to whether it is going to sell the harvesting rights to those trees as part of the deal with the troika. The approach which appears to be under consideration in this regard is that the trees in question would have been sold at some point in the future so why not sell them now. I am of the view that this is the wrong thing to do.

Twenty or 30 years from now we will be examining the issue of whether Coillte was sold this year, 2014, 2015 or whenever the decisions are made.

In this time of recession, rather than multiplying upwards as we did ten years ago, we are multiplying downwards to ensure we get a realistic figure, but whoever comes in here, whether it is banks or other international companies, they will only come in if they see that there is a killing to be made, so to speak. However, it would be wrong to allow others to make a killing when the State needs to make a killing because in the 1960s landowners were paid £1 an acre by the then Department of Agriculture, or the Forestry Commission as it was at the time. The State bought back that land subsequently. Also, in terms of side benefits, we had a presentation on that in the audio-visual room, but Deputy Andrew Doyle alluded earlier to the downside of it, and we have seen the benefits of the State owning something. When the State owns something, it can take a strategic view, and rather than taking commercial view at the time, it took a long-term view, from which it has benefited enormously.

Like my constituency colleague, Deputy Creed, I would urge caution in respect of some consultants' reports because they are not all what they seem. We must stand back in terms of our view of this issue but we must ensure the Government or the Dáil proceeds in the right way on it. Figures such as €600 million or €700 million have been bandied about but even if the figure was a multiple of that, and we are looking 50 or 60 years into the future, there is still a greater benefit in the State holding on to the Coillte crop. I understand the Coillte lands will not be for sale but in some instances the Coillte lands have been sold. In some instances when people have come together to try to buy Coillte land for one reason or another, that has been a protracted issue.

On a side issue, there is a debate ongoing at another level in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the European Commission about commonages on some Coillte land and their eligibility for single farm payment purposes and so forth, but a document was released recently which indicated they would have to have an action plan on all the commonages. One farmer told me that the last bomb scare in the South of Ireland about 20 or 25 years ago was in part of my constituency when a meeting was due to be held between the supposed owners of the commonages and the Department to agree a way forward.

I have been negotiating with a landowner for the past two and a half years in regard to deeds for their own land. Coillte might examine all its land titles, searches and so forth because it might not have full title over some lands it is claiming as its own. I am aware there are issues in that regard because in one case a father who was transferring land to his daughter faced a difficulty in that some of the land was being claimed by Coillte going back 40 years or so. A rigmarole had to be gone through to ensure the proper transfer went ahead, and the State benefits from that were held up until that process was properly concluded.

The Government should make haste slowly because this is the wrong thing to do. The timber from the Coillte land is and will be far more valuable. Under the MacSharry proposals in 1992 huge premiums for afforestation came on stream but many people who planted in 1989, 1990 and 1991 were given projected figures for the first thinning and for the mature crop. The figures they were given at that time are only fractions of what they are now realising from first thinning. That is far more valuable than what is being proposed.

See this speech in context