I listened to what the Tánaiste said about Coillte's liaison with Gresham House. I am not clear whether he is in favour of a review of this arrangement, but it was reported that he is. I would welcome some clarity on the issue, what form it might take and the timeline.

One of the arguments the Tánaiste and others have used to support the Coillte arrangement is that we cannot get to 18% afforestation without significant investment from investment funds, vulture funds or whatever other source. The Tánaiste said he might look at alternatives. We could reach our forestry targets if every farmer in Ireland with a holding of 50 acres was properly incentivised to plant 1,000 trees, which would be 1 acre, and every farmer with 100 acres was incentivised to plant 2,000 trees, which would be 2 acres, and so on, on a pro rata basis. We could do it by proactively engaging with farmers, local communities, and public authorities on certain State-owned lands. Instead, we are doing what we have done time and time again: we are engaging with large investment funds, Irish and foreign, because it is easier. We tick the box, and we get it done, but we are ignoring the impact on communities and the negative impact on farmers. We are also ignoring the fact that the kind of policy being pursued will fundamentally change settlement patterns in the west, the north west, the south west, parts of the midlands and other parts of the country.

While it is a subject for another day – I know the Tánaiste is aware of it – the cumulative effects of this type of forestry policy, as well as the rewetting targets, both our own and those of the EU, will fundamentally affect settlement patterns in Ireland. Will the Tánaiste say if it is Government policy to do that, and let the people know? When certain events occur, whether it is land clearance, abandonment or otherwise, because they are driven by other policies that the Government pursues in forestry or other areas, it is the worst and most dishonest policy for the Government to wash its hands and say "it is not us; it is Europe or climate change". However, it is the Government that makes the decisions and is responsible for the outcome.

Another major concern is how this plan will drive up the price of land and make it unprofitable for any local farmer to purchase land for any type of agricultural activity. If the Tánaiste wants to see the reality of this, he should go to County Leitrim where the price being paid for land for afforestation already means no local farmer can compete to buy the land for agricultural use or for agroforestry, which is what I propose. We might as well put up a sign and say no locals need apply.

I thank the Deputy.

Could the Tánaiste confirm that he supports a review of the Coillte plan? Could he give us a timeline and tell us what form it will take?

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue, along with Deputy Cairns, because it is an important one. The Government's policy, as the Deputy states, is to increase afforestation from the current level of 11%, or 808,848 ha, to 18% by 2050. This will require an additional 450,000 ha of new forests by 2050. Coillte, in its strategic vision, has committed to enabling 100,000 ha of new forests by 2050, to create a carbon sink of approximately 18 million tonnes of CO2. Half of these forests will be native woodlands. The other half will be forests for quality timber production, which will be used in large part to displace emissions-intensive building materials such as steel and cement.

My view, which the Minister will be communicating to Coillte today, is that Coillte did not need the legal approval of the Government in respect of its decision. However, I take the Deputy's point that overall public policy must be clear also. My view is that subject to state aid rules, in terms of forestry, I would want the land to be in State ownership. Farmers are individual private operators as well. We want farmers to drive the bulk of the afforestation, so we must be careful about the utilisation of the terms "private" and "public". There can be no selling off of any State forests or anything like that. I think the State itself should be more actively involved in purchasing land too. That will create tensions in terms of pricing and other such issues, but we must purchase land for native woodlands and for simple rewilding at its most basic because the biodiversity challenge is so crucial. We are not at the races in respect of meeting the biodiversity challenge just yet. The Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, and others have made great progress in the past two and a half years by doubling the budget of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, and it now becoming a Government agency. For the first time in a long time, the NPWS has found its feet and has got great underpinning. I am very passionately committed to the biodiversity agenda. I have been asking agencies to buy land for rewilding and native woodlands. We need commercial forestry as well. The construction industry must develop more carbon-efficient mechanisms to build houses in the future. Timber-frame construction is pitifully low in this country in comparison to Scotland, for example. The real issue for us is to get from the low level we are currently at. Significant progress was made in the 1980s and 1990s but that has stalled in more recent times.

The time is up.

The more fundamental part of the Government's strategy is the premiums and the large increase in that regard, which is a very significant incentive for farmers to use more of their land for afforestation.

I could not disagree with a word the Tánaiste has said, but the problem is that it is not what is happening. I support the Government's forestry policy in terms of getting to 18%, but I do not support how it is going about part of it because the implications of that, as I have outlined, are significant.

The Tánaiste says he wants land to be in State ownership; I fully agree with him, but is the policy that is being currently pursued going to ensure that? Last July, 1,000 acres in County Tipperary were bought by Gresham House. It is already under way. It is happening. That is standing forest. The Tánaiste says one thing, with which I agree, but what is happening on the ground is different. The Tánaiste says the real issue is to get it done. Yes, it is. I have given him an example of one of the ways we could do it, by engaging proactively with farmers and communities right across the country. We could go a long way doing that-----

I thank Deputy Harkin.

-----instead of inviting in the investment and vulture funds to tick the box and get it done quickly. Could he please pause what is happening and conduct a review?

The size of the fund will be about €200 million. The fund aims ultimately to own a total of 12,000 ha of forest. This is what I have been informed. This equates to roughly 1.5% of our total existing forest estate. Of those 12,000 ha of forests, roughly 3,500 ha will be new forests, which the fund hopes to plant over the next five years. That is an average of 700 ha of new forests per annum for each of the next five years, out of an existing annual target of 8,000 ha per annum.

The remainder of the 12,000 ha purchased by the fund will be existing forest. The percentage impact of this particular initiative by Coillte is relatively low. We want other models to be developed to drive the overall forestry agenda. In particular, we want exponential growth in the number of trees we plant every year.