asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry if he will establish a new State-sponsored authority — An tÚdarás Adhmaid — as proposed by the Irish Timber Council in their policy statement issued on 3 July 1984; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

8.

asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry if his Department has yet completed its examination of the recommendation of the National Planning Board that a semi-State body be established to run the forestry and timber industry; the results of the examination and if he will make a statement on the matter.

9.

asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry if he will make a statement on the terms of reference etc. of the Review Group on Forestry announced by him on 7 November 1984.

10.

asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry if he has any plans to replace his Department with a semi-State body as was done with the Department of Posts and Telgraphs.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 together.

I have no plans to replace the Department of Fisheries and Forestry with a semi-State body on the lines suggested. Neither are proposals for the establishment of a timber authority or board being considered by me.

The Government's views on the latter issue were set out in paragraph 3.58 of the recent Economic Plan, Building on Reality, 1985-87. I would also refer the Deputies to my own comments in the course of the Dáil debate on the Plan on 17 October 1984, Official Report, Volume 352, column 2754 refers.

The Review Group on Forestry was established by me on 7 November 1984 with the following terms of reference.

With a view to ensuring that the country's afforestation programme and, in particular, the substantial resource which it represents, is developed and exploited to the best national advantage, having due regard to the role and functions of the National Development Corporation where relevant——

(1) to examine the present structure, organisation and operation of the Forest and Wildlife Service of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry;

(2) to consider what changes, if any, are necessary;

(3) to make specific recommendations on such changes; and

(4) to submit a report to the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry by 1 June 1985.

Are we to take it from the Minister's reply that he is neglecting the proposal from the Irish Timber Council for the establishment of An tÚdarás Adhmaid? Are we to take it that he will not consider the establishment of a State-sponsored body in charge of forestry?

I think the Deputy is misinterpreting what I said.

The Minister answered too many questions together.

I am sorry about that. Normally I am accused of not answering half the questions put to me. If I answered too many questions together I make no apology for it, and I mean that in the best sense. I do not want to be acrimonious about this.

Deputy Molloy misinterpreted what I said. The document produced by the Irish Timber Council suggested the establishment of a timber board, an tÚdarás Adhmaid. I am looking at the whole structure and I have appointed a review group on which the Irish Timber Council are represented in order to establish an independent group and the best method to approach this problem, including, if necessary, the establishment of whatever authority they deem fit. Anything I say now in relation to my own view might be seen as preempting the deliberations of this review group, who have been given seven months to produce a report with recommendations.

Are we to understand from the Minister's reply that, in spite of all the recommendations of the National Planning Board and the people involved in the timber industry, the Minister has no proposals for any change in the structure or organisation of the timber industry? He does not propose to establish a board, a semi-State body or a timber authority. How does he propose to market the increasing volume of timber which will be coming on the market when his Department are unable to give accurate estimates of what volume of timber will be coming through? There is one administrative staff member for every two in the field. This is a top heavy organisation which has no interest in marketing.

The Deputy does not seem to be asking a question.

What proposals has the Minister? My first question asked if he had examined the recommendations of the National Planning Board. I take it he has examined but rejected those recommendations. Is that a fact?

First, I do not accept the implications in the Deputy's statement that inaccurate information was given by the Department in relation to projections. Second, in relation to the National Planning Board's recommendations, I have scrutinised them in order to ensure that the industry get what they need, in other words, that they will be involved in deliberating on what is the best approach. I decided to establish a review group comprised of all interested parties operating within the industry. That includes the Irish Timber Council, private growers, processors and so on plus public servants who would have an input and make recommendations. I do not know what recommendations they will make in their report but all the interests within the industry have been included in the review group. That is the best way to go about it. I do not want to impose something that will not be acceptable to certain elements within the industry. It is much better to get the industry involved and to let them from their experience lay down the guidelines which should be followed.

Does the Minister agree that it is said that the only Irish solution to every problem seems to be the establishment of a review body? What is required here is the political will to make a decision. The Minister is unable, afraid, does not have the ability or is postponing the decision for some other reason. There have been sufficient reports on the state of the Irish timber industry already. The IDA and the National Planning board have made their views known——

The Deputy cannot make a speech.

The Minister has an abundance of information and facts upon which he could make a decision in regard to the future of the timber industry. Does the Minister agree that the State is losing £100 million yearly because of the cost of the inefficient operation of our forestry and timber industries? The information with regard to those industries has been sent to the Minister——

The Deputy is making speech after speech on supplementary questions and it is intolerable. I have said on numerous occasions that it is not possible to deal with policy at Question Time. It does not make sense.

I will endeavour to reply to Deputy Molloy's allegations — they were not questions. I am not in the business of providing Irish solutions to Irish problems; I will leave that to someone else. Is the Deputy suggesting that I should lay down the law regardless of what people in the industry think? Is he complaining because I am consulting with the people who matter in the industry, private growers, processors and so on? If he is let him say so——

They have all made their views known.

They have not. The throw away remark concerning £100 million being lost is the sort of statement that should not be made by someone with the Deputy's experience because it is not true.

It is true.

It is not true. The Deputy might as well have said £500 million.

That figure relates to the softwood industry.

Is there a change of plan in the Minister's Department regarding the sale of timber as the small purchaser seems to have been cut out recently?

The Deputy is introducing a totally different topic.

It is all related to the timber industry.

This is about the setting-up of a State-sponsored body.

Has there been a change of plan in the Minister's Department in regard to not selling timber to the small purchaser?

No.

There have been cases——

If the Deputy gives me details concerning such cases I will look into them.

Is the Minister aware that people have doubts in regard to the value of this review group in view of the fact that the Minister set up his own internal review committee within his Department and that his technical experts have advised him that there is a need for a commercially orientated semi-State organisation to fully exploit our timber resources? He has expert advice available to him inside-and outside the industry——

Could the Deputy please ask a question?

People are sceptical about a review body which seems to be comprised of those whose interests totally conflict——

If the Deputy does not ask a question I will move on to the next one.

Could the Minister clarify the value of this review group when he has already——

That is argument.

As the Deputy said, I have the views of an internal group in my Department. Is the Deputy suggesting that I should not consult with other groups directly involved in the industry or that I should impose something on the industry?

I would like some indication of the expertise of the members of the review body.

I am calling Deputy Mac Giolla.

This question was addressed to the Minister for the Public Service but it was transferred to the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry because the Minister would not wish to get rid of his own Department. While the review body are sitting for a number of years, what steps does the Minister intend to take to prevent the export of 12 per cent of our best quality timber to Northern Ireland and to increase the output of timber to ensure that our mills are not operating at 60 per cent capacity? In his reply the Minister referred to the National Development Corporation but I cannot recall exactly what he said. What role does he see for this mythical corporation in the development of our forests because I believe such an organisation does not exist?

Never mind about belief, ask a question.

What did the Minister say about the National Development Corporation which, I understand, does not exist?

With regard to the Deputy's remark about the review body sitting for years, I have already stated that I have given a deadline of 1 June 1985 to the review group to report. I have said this twice already. It is a question of months, not years. I refuse the allegation that the vast bulk of the best of our timber is going North.

I know that 12 per cent is going North.

It is more like 11 per cent. The input of the National Development Corporation to this area of activity will be decided when the review group have published their report and, if relevant, they will become involved in the further development of the industry.

Can the Minister say what timber and afforestation experience the members of the review body have? He also said earlier that he did not want to impose something on the timber industry which they did not want. In this regard is he now telling the House that the timber industry does not want this semi-State body although they recommended the setting up of such a body on numerous occasions? Is he aware of the tremendous opportunity for afforestation and expansion of the timber industry here to make a contribution to the economy?

I am fully aware of the potential of the industry and that is why I want to make sure that what we do now, when production is coming onstream in a substantial way, is the right way to do things. In order to ensure that, consultations should take place across the board. In relation to the experience of the people involved in the review body, many of them have 30 or 40 years' experience of dealing with different aspects of the industry.

Could the Minister tell us the names of the members of this review body?

That seems to be a separate question.

Is the Minister prepared to tell the House who the members are?

It is public knowledge.

Would the Minister give an assurance that the people he has appointed to this review body are not just Fine Gael activists, because that is what they seem to be from the names which we have heard?

I was wondering when Deputy Molloy would come around to that in his usual way. They are not Fine Gael activists: they are people who have vast experience in the industry.

Mr. Hussey and Mr. O'Keeffe.

Mr. Hussey has forgotten more about forestry than the Deputy will ever know about it and I am privileged to have the services of Mr. O'Keeffe as chairman.

I am calling Question No. 11.

The Minister is blushing.

It would take more than the Deputy to make the Minister blush.