Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

At the beginning of the 20th century, this cover dropped to approximately 1%. The European average is in the region of 35% while our average is about 11%. I accept that this Bill is not the be-all-and-end-all. It is not going to cure all the ills of the forestry sector and it is about setting out a regulatory framework. However, it is important to acknowledge that forests are much more than just the economic value they bring to the nation's balance sheet. Reference has been made to biodiversity but also to our greenhouse gas emissions and the contribution forestry makes to the regulation of global climate and temperature. They are all very significant issues in respect of which we have global obligations and targets to meet.

I am not sure that it would be appropriate to stitch into this legislation targets for afforestation levels. However, it is important that this legislation gets the balance right in terms of the regulatory framework. It begs the question "cad a dhéanfaimid anois leis an Bille seo?" I am not sure that we have got the balance right. From my reading of it, it is an administrator's charter. It really does not seem to grasp the fact that if the forestry sector is to thrive and if we are to achieve targets of first 17% and then 30%, they will not be achieved through State afforestation, significant as that role will be. We will largely depend on the private forestry sector and farmers in particular to meet those targets. There is much in this Bill that will frighten landowners. It might be appropriate between now and Committee Stage to reflect on some of the contributions that have been made in that context and take on board the points that are being made.

It is a very significant economic sector that is valued in excess of €2 billion. Rural Ireland is trotted out as if it is a homogenous area but forestry is a particularly important sector in areas where the traditional farming practices of dairy or beef farming are not as prevalent or significant in the local economy. This is predominantly marginal land. In terms of the ambitious targets of 17% and 30% we hope to meet, the fact is that we will be moving on to much more productive land and that is an issue that brings with it considerable cultural difficulties. I thought Deputy Boyd Barrett's contribution was very fine but there are different cultures at play. There is an urban culture which obviously relishes its inhabitants' opportunity to walk in woodlands but there is a rural culture that is very reluctant to embrace the concept of increased afforestation on what is considered good land. Good land will be afforested to a greater extent than it was in the past - certainly in the history of this State - if we are to meet those targets. If we are to do that, we need a cultural change and an educational initiative to sell the opportunities that come with it. I am not sure that the framework is appropriate in terms of what is in the legislation.

It is an industry worth €2.2 billion that employs somewhere between 10,000 and 15,000 people. They are mostly in areas where the land is of marginal quality. It is those who are directly involved in ownership but there are downstream industries in timber processing, haulage and associated services so it is a very significant industry and one where the legislation has been found to be significantly out of date. My colleague referred to it. I am not sure when the previous legislation was introduced - possibly 60 or 70 years ago - but it is long due an updating.

It must also be acknowledged that while we started from a very low base, private concerns involved in forestry have been the ones who have stepped up to the plate in terms of meeting targets for increased afforestation. More than 20 years ago, there was virtually no private forestry and State forestry and subsequently Coillte was the predominant player. Twenty years ago, it was a balance of 70% to 30% between the State and the private sector. Due to initiatives, encouragement and an appropriate framework, we now have almost a 50:50 balance between public and private forestry. The targets we set for a higher level of afforestation will only be met if we have the appropriate framework for private investment and that is the challenge.

The Bill contains things that are excessive. Section 6(e) refers to "land suitable for afforestation or for any other forestry-related activities". The inference I read from that section is that such land can be compulsorily purchased. If we are to encourage the private sector to get involved in forestry, the idea of Big Brother having compulsory purchase powers over land suitable for forestry strikes the wrong note completely. In his response, could the Minister of State tell me what the rationale for the inclusion of that provision in the Bill is?

Most of us in rural constituencies and certainly those of us from farming backgrounds would be aware of the cumbersome nature of felling licences. Much of what is contained in respect of reform there is welcome. Dangerous trees can be felled in a much speedier manner, which is particularly welcome. In respect of the replanting requirement, the Minister of State is, for the purposes of the legislation, mentioned as having all of these powers. He can attach conditions to replanting lands that have been clear-felled and can do so in a manner that can impact on the title of the land.

Sledge hammers cracking nuts come to mind. It is inappropriate and potential investors in forestry will be frightened away if they think their opportunities to maximise returns from their land holdings may be compromised by the State obliging them to do something. If they can show they can get a better economic return through a different approach, that should be open to consideration. People will be slow to sign up to forestry management plans if the Minister is able to impose conditions on replanting without appropriate consultation or reference to the potential for adverse economic impacts on forestry owners and their entitlement to compensation from the State where they are obliged to do something else. This issue is related to the imbalance in forestry policy between native species and spruce and other imports, which are currently predominate. We need to take a co-operative approach rather than wield the big stick. There is too much of the stick in this Bill.

I look forward to engaging with the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Hayes, on Committee Stage but I ask whether the amount of consultation that has been pursued to date was sufficient to take account of the views of the industry. The people to whom I have spoken think the suggestions they made as part of the consultation process for the Bill, which has had a long gestation, are not reflected in its contents.

Section 26(1) provides:

A person who, in applying for a grant, loan, registration, licence or approval under the relevant statutory provisions - (a) furnishes information, or

(b) makes a statement,that he or she knows to be false or misleading in a material respect, shall be guilty of an offence.

Most people who get into forestry employ a forester to manage their lands. Given that most of these professionals have professional indemnity insurance, if they are in breach of regulations or obligations in respect of sustainable forestry management is it appropriate to penalise the landowner rather the agent who is acting in a professional capacity?

This legislation was never going to become the be all and end all for the forestry sector. Forestry is an important part of our economy and it plays a significant role in a range of areas, from recreation and biodiversity to climate change and greenhouse emissions. I acknowledge what Coillte has done in regard to recreational forestry.

I beg the Acting Chair's indulgence if I make reference to a case I encountered through my constituency office involving a former employee of Coillte who retired on a pension of €30 per week after 30 years of service. That is a gross offence to an individual who gave long service to a State company, particularly when others in that company have retired on enormous pensions. I will give the Minister of State the details of the case so that he might examine them.

See this speech in context