No apologies have been received. Before we begin, I bring to everyone's attention the fact that witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that a witness has a full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse the privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's discretion. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard. They are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity.

Witnesses who are giving evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on the matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses outside the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make any charges against any person outside of the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to the utterances of members participating online in this committee meeting when their participation is from within the parliamentary precincts. Members may not participate online in public meetings from outside the parliamentary precincts. Any attempt to do so will result in the member having their online access removed.

Forestry issues are on our agenda today. We are going to hear from the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine with special responsibility for forestry, farm safety and horticulture, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae. Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. He is accompanied by Mr. Barry Delany, director of the forestry division, Mr. Fergus Moore, head of the forest sector development division and Dr. Robert Mooney, principal officer in the forestry division.

The Minister of State's opening statement has been circulated and members will have had the opportunity to read over it. The Minister of State has five minutes to read his statement. We will then move to questions from the members.

I thank the Chairperson and the members for the invitation to be here. This is a very important committee. The issue before it is very important to all the members, to the Chairperson and to the officials, who I am glad to have with me.

I thank the committee again for the invitation to attend. I came into this role 12 months ago determined to create momentum, restore confidence in the Irish forestry sector and to get it back on track and support our farmers and landowners. I passionately believe in forestry and in what we are doing and will do Ireland in the future with regard to forestry.

It was a challenging first year. Storms Darragh and Éowyn resulted in 27,000 ha of trees being blown down overnight. I immediately established the forest windblow task force and made sure that storm-related felling and road licences were prioritised. Those private landowners who have been affected will soon be able to receive financial aid through the reconstitution scheme. In the context of that scheme, I confirm that we have secured €55 million for the owners of private forestry who were affected by Storm Darragh and Storm Éowyn. The scheme was agreed by Cabinet in December, and this morning I secured state aid approval for the scheme and shared the document with the sector. In advance of anybody asking where the reconstitution is, therefore, this is the scheme and the details are out in public and have been shared with the sector. I wished to put that on record.

The health of Ireland’s forests is relatively good. Ireland does not have the range of forest pests and diseases that are common on the Continent and further afield. However, we face significant challenges, including the continuing management of the ash dieback disease, which has had major impact on forest owners. Since the launch of the first supports in 2013, over €27 million has been paid out to beneficiaries by means of both ash dieback reconstitution schemes and the climate action performance payment, CAPP.

Even in the face of these ongoing challenges, 2,527 ha of new forests were planted last year, which is a significant increase on 2024. We also have over 4,000 ha of new lands licensed and available for planting. To help these landowners make a positive choice on establishing a new forest, my Department now offers 21 schemes and measures under the current programme which provides a huge range of choice for the creation of new forests and the sustainable management of existing forests, forest roads, technology, the conservation of native woodlands and climate resilient reforestation. In order to make sure that all those who want to plant can do so, I secured a total budget of €93 million for forestry for 2026.

To keep on improving what is on offer for those coming into forestry, a mid-term review of the forestry programme was completed in 2025 in consultation with the stakeholders.

My Department is finalising the appropriate processes before the outcomes can be published. I expect that those process will be concluded very soon.

My Department is continuing to develop communications and engagement plans to make sure that the right opportunities are available to the right landowners at the right time. To make sure that we can support a person's journey from applicant to new forest owner, I am happy to say that licensing turnaround times have improved dramatically. I thank the people in my Department who are dealing with licences and who have really stepped up to the plate. It is very good to ask people to do something, but it is nice to acknowledge good work. I want to say thanks very much to everyone from the senior management team to the director of forestry and to everyone on down from there. They are operating to a really high standard. Members of the committee and the elected Members of Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann will have had constituents coming to them with horror stories and to the effect that the licensing is a disaster. I do not want to hear that again because that is not true. It is the exact opposite. Those involved are acting very quickly, efficiently and smoothly and I want to say thanks to all of them.

We were not just focusing on private landowners; the State is leading by example. Last year, I wrote personally to 82 public bodies to launch the planting on public lands initiative. This initiative encourages all public organisations with land to work with my Department to create new forests on public lands. This is proving to be a huge success, and my Department has already met with over 30 public organisations, including Departments, local authorities, education and training boards, ETBs and State bodies across the country.

I hope it is clear from my opening remarks, that forestry is not just about planting new forests or reconstitution schemes. Forestry is a significant and vital industry for this country. It provides excellent career opportunities, especially in rural areas, with nearly 12,000 employed in the industry nationally and the sector contributing €2.3 billion to the economy. Any time that anybody might dismiss forestry as a land use, they should think about the fact that it is worth €2.3 billion to the economy. I am very pleased that, very soon, we will be able bring to Cabinet the final report of the timber in construction steering group and its recommendations for action to support the increased use of timber in construction, which will support the house construction sector by means of wood grown in Ireland as opposed to importing everything that is needed.

For the past 100 years, we have been creating new forests in Ireland. We keep building on this legacy. Since taking office, I have worked diligently with my Department to help build a forestry sector that continues to grow as a significant part of Ireland's national infrastructure. It is important to recognise that while afforestation is a voluntary land use choice for landowners, I am confident that the attractive rates and supports, efficient systems and targeted engagement will encourage landowners to plant trees and grow the forestry sector in 2026 and beyond.

I thank the Minister of State. We have one of the least forested countries in the EU. Quite a bit of effort is going in to planting. Six members are offering. We will do seven minutes each, which will give us the opportunity to have a second round.

I have one brief question. Storm Éowyn would have damaged a large number of trees in the west, including parts of Kerry. I am very conscious that a big crew of harvesting people have been involved with the recovery there and with the removal of trees. There are only so many people involved in harvesting in the country. They are going from other parts of the country to do the work there, which is leaving a gap in some places. Is there any indication as to when things might be in hand in order that places like Waterford, Cork and Kerry will have full crews again for harvesting?

One concern the Chair would have in terms of constituents and the country is balance and making sure all our sawmills, for example, are kept operating at near to or full capacity. It does not make sense to have one sawmill operating over time and another sawmill in another region perhaps not having enough timber coming in to it. We are addressing that issue. We are making sure the checks and balances are being put in place to keep everybody going.

It is true that 90% of the harvesting equipment in this country is being operated on windblow sites at the moment. It makes more sense. There is no point in going into a forest that is standing and thinning or clear-felling it at a time when this other timber has already been knocked down by God. We have to try to tidy up all that first and then concentrate on the standing timber. Of course, people have the right to apply to thin or clear-fell their forests if they want to. Currently, however, what we are trying to do nationally is concentrate on the windblow sites. Work is continuing because there are contracts in place. People have felling licences, and they want to go ahead. It is working, and we are on top of it. I am very confident for those in the sector, namely the people who work the machinery, the forestry companies and the sawmills. The exports are good. We are getting on as good as we possibly can considering the enormity of having to face two and a half years supply of timber being knocked down in one night. Everybody has risen to the challenge.

Some 25% of what was knocked down has been harvested to date. There will be a big push to move more quickly as the days get longer. It is lovely to see a bit of time coming in the morning and every evening – we are all delighted to see that - but there is hard work to be done. The thing we want to drive home all the time about the work that is going on is no matter what rush you are in, no matter what panic is happening, the one thing we want is for everybody to be safe. In the context of the operators of the machinery, the people who own the forests, the people involved in the haulage and the people working in the sawmills, we want them all to get through this without being injured and without any accidents or incidents. Sometimes when there is a big panic on, that is when things go wrong. We want to make sure people are safe. When the evenings get longer, the machine operators will be able to work later into the night. We can look forward to all of that. I am really confident. As the Cathaoirleach knows, we have excellent people working in the harvesting of timber. We could not have better in Europe.

For sure. I thank the Minister of State. I call Senator Collins.

I thank the Minister of State for his opening statement. What percentage of landowners have taken up the ash dieback reconstitution scheme to date?

There were 16,000 ha affected. Paid and compensated is 4,991 ha, which is 1,444 forests. Approved since 2023 and awaiting payment is 3,135 ha, which is 1,012 forests. There are 718 ha currently being processed. The total processed through the system is 8,844 ha, which is 2,658 forests. This means that over 55% of the total ash area is either paid for, approved for payment or in active processing. I am very glad Senator Collins asked this question because I want to give her one answer she did not look for. What about the people who have ash dieback and have done nothing?

That is why I am asking about the percentage.

And I want to answer the Senator very directly. There is a very strong message relating to the question she rightly asked. In December of 2027, we will be cutting off the support for the ash dieback scheme.

That was my next question.

And I am glad to give the Senator that answer. Because that tells people they have 24 months to, once and for all, make up their minds about what they are going to do. The one message I will give the Senator is that it is a lot better to be looking at a small tree growing than to be looking at an old tree dying. I really mean that. People have 24 months to address this matter. I will rely 100% on each member here in their good offices, whether it is in the Seanad or the Dáil or whether by means of their parties' local authority members throughout the country, to please get the message out that in 24 months’ time people should not come looking for compensation.

The compensation that is there is very adequate. I will remind the Senator what it is.

Has the Minister of State looked at the possibility of giving this compensation up front considering the ash dieback that hit has taken the income from those trees for these landowners? Has the Minister of State looked at the possibility of an upfront grant instead of making them clear it first and then claim the money?

No. When we talk about money, we should always remember that time is more valuable than money. People who have delayed over all these years-----

For people without the money, it is not.

Let me finish because it is a very important point. The scheme that is there offers €2,000 to clear that hectare, €3,000 to plant it and €5,000 for the person tax free. I would rather than ash dieback had never come here but-----

I am sure they would, too.

Exactly.

What I am trying to say is that a lot of landowners do not have that money up front to claim it back afterwards. To get the other 45%, would the Minister of State not consider giving them an upfront payment to at least clear it to get them started so they do not have to pay for that up front?

The terms of the scheme are the terms of the scheme. It is €10,000 per hectare. People need to realise soon that there are 24 months left and that if they do not act within those 24 months, there will be no euro. I really want to get it out there. The money and the package are there but the terms of the scheme-----

The money is there after they fork it out. What if they cannot afford to get this done before they get the money?

We have the exact same problem with many other grants and assistance schemes. People have to-----

Are these landowners not obliged to fell these trees and replant or else receive fines?

What I do not want coming out of the Senator's question is for people to think that the rules of the scheme will change.

That is why I am asking. Is there any possibility of them changing?

Absolutely not. I am giving the Senator a very clear answer.

If there is no chance of getting the other 45% to plant under the way the scheme is now, the Minister of State will still not look at it even after it 2027?

Yes. The Senator is aware that when a forester or forestry company is involved, the mandate for the payment is given to the registered forester for the grant. Working in conjunction with the forestry companies, there are ways and means of dealing with this issue provided they are using the services of a registered, qualified and good forester, of whom the Senator knows we have many.

We do. I have been speaking to a lot-----

I am not saying the Senator is doing this, but rather than picking at the scheme, will she please use her good offices to tell people that there are 24 months left and the bus will have left-----

These questions are coming into my office.

I am after answering them.

Landowners are contacting me all the time telling me that they are not going to replant and wanting to know what the consequences will be and when they will be looking at fines because they cannot afford to replant.

If they do not avail of the scheme, to be honest, it will be an awful loss to them and their families because there is €10,000 per hectare. A person-----

Is there-----

Just let me finish. A person with five or ten hectares is looking at €50,000 or €100,000 of a payment. They will leave that after them and will be looking at dead trees standing instead of looking at nice, new, young trees growing.

If they cannot afford to do the work up front today, it does not matter what they are going to get in ten or 20 years' time.

If they work with the proper registered foresters, they will be able to overcome that problem.

So every registered forester will do this.

Usually, the grant is mandated to the forestry companies and forestry companies are able to work this together. For goodness sake, why let time go by? I keep telling the Senator that time is more valuable than money and if they move-----

For somebody who has money, that is a very easy thing to say but not for landowners who do not have the money.

No, it is the exact opposite. I am trying to put money into their pockets. Remember that €5,000 per hectare for themselves.

I know. I am just coming from the other side. For somebody who does not have the money, it is very hard to just go and do it if the contractors will not do it up front for them and wait for the grant. How long does the grant take to come through?

Is the Senator aware that the clearing grant can come first?

Is that up front?

The Senator did not know that.

The last time I asked, I asked whether someone could get a grant to clear it up front.

No, the Senator asked a different question.

No, not today. A couple of months ago when we had the same conversation, I asked whether there was no way to get it up front and the Minister of State said that they had to clear their land, fell the trees and replant, and then they would get their grant.

The clearing grant can be given first. That is the exact same answer I gave the Senator the last time. I am sorry if she did not hear it.

Before any machinery goes in, they get that grant.

Once it is cleared.

Then again, they still have to pay to get it cleared.

Hold on one second.

We need to move on to Deputy Kenny. Very briefly.

This is a very important point. When a farmer hires a digger - forget about trees - to open drains, has the Senator ever in her life heard of a digger being paid to open-----

No, but I do not think that it was-----

-----the drains before opening them? No.

-----Government incompetence that filled the drain. It was Government incompetence that brought in the ash dieback.

If a contractor goes in to clear-----

We need to move on to Deputy Kenny.

-----a forest, they are not going to have their hand out. The Senator does not like the answer she is getting.

I know, because the Minister of State is not listening to me at all.

The Senator is not listening to me.

It is not the Government that caused the problem with the drain. The Government caused the problem with the ash dieback. The Government should pay for the bloody thing up front.

The Senator will have an opportunity for a second round of questions.

The Senator is missing the point. She thinks the contractor has to be paid before going in to clear the trees.

We have to move on to Deputy Martin Kenny. There will be an opportunity for a second round of questions.

The contractor is not looking for the money to clear the ground beforehand. A couple of weeks after the ground is cleared, the grant will be paid. I am sorry the Senator does not like the answer she is getting.

The Minister of State is not listening to me.

No, the Senator is not listening to the answer.

Next time, we might get a straight answer.

The Senator got a straight answer but she did not like the answer she got.

Next time, we will get the straight answer. I can answer back just as much.

The big problem a lot of people have with forestry is that they planted trees and invested and were promised an income from it, but then ash dieback came along and wiped it out. Forestry is a long-term investment and a permanent change of land use. That land can never go back to whatever it was before. In vast areas of the country where I live, we have an awful lot of what would be considered marginal land planted with Sitka spruce. People have invested in it and hope to see it almost become a pension fund, but along comes a big night of wind and it is all gone after growing for maybe 20 years. What is left is a tangled mess that they can get very little for. While I appreciate that there is a grant and assistance there, the reality is that the sawmills and companies are not paying a very good price. In some cases, the timber is poor quality because it was not mature when it fell.

They are in a very difficult position and it is going to be very hard to convince those people to go back into something like afforestation, which involves such a long-term commitment, when they know it might be wiped out by, for example, ash dieback or a storm that arrives 20 years later. If someone puts in a crop and the crop fails, be it oats or barley, or if someone's cattle get TB, the person will get back into business in a year or two, but the length of time a forester waits for that crop to grow means that, if something messes up, it is a lifetime of loss, not a short-term loss. More and more people I am talking to in the community are telling me that they were thinking about afforestation but not any more because of what they have seen happen. That is the big task we have.

A big portion of afforestation is about carbon sequestration. Perhaps there are options other than afforestation that do not involve such a long-term commitment. At some point, we have to face up to that reality and the difficulty people have. I would like to get the Minister of State's views. Does he understand where people are coming from?

I understand, and I thank the Deputy for his question. I understand statistics and facts. The Deputy does realise that more people last year came along and said they wanted to plant their ground than the year before. They were well aware during the year of 2025 because the storm had come earlier in the year. They knew that forests could be affected by a storm and knew what had happened to other people, yet they still elected to come along and say that they were giving over their land to forestry and that they liked and understood the schemes that were available. We planted more trees last year. Of course, we are all upset about what happened. The Deputy says that people are telling him that they will not plant but more people planted last year than the year before, the year before that or the year before that.

Is the Minister of State talking about new plantations or replantations?

I am talking about new plantations. I am talking about people getting into afforestation. In other words, new forestries. People reforesting is a different issue.

I am talking about people who came along and planted new ground. People are electing to plant trees.

As regards the people who were affected by the storms, the Deputy is 100% right, in that it is devastating, but there are different categories. With some of the forests that were knocked, a lot of the timber that was able to come out was boxwood. That was very valuable. It was the exact same as it would have ever been. As regards the lighter timber, if your forestry was, say, 14 to 20 or 21 years old,-----

Very full.

-----that could be light and the percentage of boxwood you would get - saw timber - could be poor. Then you are left with a situation where the majority might be pulpwood. It is not as though it is worthless. I have heard people say - to be honest, I have heard politicians say it - that it is worth nothing. That is not true. Timber, whatever shape or form it is, whatever weight it is, is still worth money. Of course, we would rather if the storm had not come, but if someone has an issue with the storm, they should take it up with God because I did not create the storm and I did not blow the wind. What I did do-----

We know that, but the consequences of God or the Minister of State are that the farmer is left with no money. That is the difficulty.

No. I am sorry. There is one thing I will not let happen today. The Deputy just made a statement that the landowners were left with nothing.

Well, the Minister of State gave me an example of a 14-year-old forest that would fall and would be worth only pulp. When that person has to replant, they have to clear that - it will cost more to clear it than if it was standing - and then they have to replant. It is going to cost them a lot of money to do that. That is the point I am making. That is why we say it is not that they will not get money for it. They will, but, unfortunately, under the terms of the schemes that are there at the moment, they have to invest that money back into the forestry again and it will take all of it to do it.

The Deputy is wrong because what he is just after forgetting about is that this Government and this Department did something that they were not legally obliged to do. He is forgetting the fact of the €55 million that this Department and this Government are making available to replant. He is just after saying that the sale of the pulpwood had to go back into the replanting. Well, he is wrong, and he cannot say something in here that is factually incorrect. I ask him to correct the record and say they do not have to use that money because that is what this document in my hand is for. This is the reconstitution scheme. This is what will plant the land for them.

We have not seen that.

So, the Deputy did not know there was a reconstitution scheme-----

We have not read that-----

-----and him a spokesperson for Sinn Féin.

The Minister of State told me that document was in the industry.

He did not know that this was coming.

That is not what I said. The Minister of State showed us that document earlier and he said the industry had access to that document. Do the farmers have access to that document? That is the question I am asking. I am not trying to argue with the Minister of State; I am trying to tease out the point.

I told the Deputy months ago when we were in here that this reconstitution scheme was going to be there. Does he not remember me telling him that?

I do, yes.

Right. So, the Deputy knew it was coming as well.

Steady on.

But is it available to the farmers?

Of course it is.

The time is limited and we want to try to get answers.

I told them that immediately after the storm.

Yes, but-----

I told Deputy Kenny as well.

The final point I want to make, going back to the storm again, is with regard to the-----

I need to move on to Deputy Lawless. There will be an opportunity for a second bite at it.

Just to be factual, the State is standing with the forestry owners.

I need to move on to Deputy Lawless. Before I do-----

If Deputy Kenny does not like the answers because they are factual-----

It is not about not liking the answer. Not liking the answer-----

Deputy, do not draw the Minister of State on. Before I move on to Deputy Lawless, can the Minister of State please clarify that, with the ash dieback scheme, the landowner can draw the clearing grant after clearing it and before doing the planting and drawing on the cost associated with the planting?

Yes.

That would be pretty much like a staged payment.

Exactly. As regards the final clearance, to be very clear, did you ever in your life hear of a person having to pay for a digger before they did the work?

They would already have a digger before going in.

Yes, but you do not pay the money.

We will ask the questions. The next person is Deputy Lawless.

I thank the Minister of State and his officials. I welcome the reconstitution grant. We called for this in the committee and we welcome the fact that there has been progress on it. What is the timeline for payments and what is the number of eligible or expected eligible farmers for that?

Every person who has timber that was knocked is eligible for the replanting grant. The reconstitution document will be sent. It should be remembered it was cleared only today by the Commission. That was not on purpose. It was with the Commission for a very short length of time and it cleared it today. That document will be sent to all the members of this committee. The document will be on the website later today and they will be able to see it and the terms and conditions of it. It is very clear.

No. Deputy Lawless has the floor.

Does the Minister of State have a timeline in relation to payouts?

The IT people are updating it and putting it up on the website, but it is exactly what we always said it would be 12 months ago.

Obviously, it is very welcome. It will be more difficult in future, particularly if these storms are more frequent, to entice more people into forestry. I appreciate the point the Minister of State made about increases, but would he consider a State-run, State-backed insurance scheme for forest owners whereby an owner would be compensated not just for the replanting but for the value of the timber itself? The Minister of State after Deputy Healy-Rae may not be as supportive in relation to reconstitution. Is that something he has considered or would consider? I refer not to a free insurance scheme but to a scheme farmers could pay into and where that insurance would cover the timber itself as well as the replanting.

The first reaction of any potential insurance company would be that while you can insure forestries for fire, insuring forestries for windblow is obviously more difficult. That is the case not just in this country but throughout Europe. If a decision were to be taken by the Government to operate a Government-backed type of company, that would be a different issue. What we have to deal with right now is the people who are affected right now. State-backed and mutually assured funds could be possible. The Irish Farmers Association, IFA, has raised issues like this in the past. What we have to deal with right now, however, is the problem we have at hand. Things like that can all be looked at in the future, but I certainly cannot give the Deputy any guarantee that such a thing can happen in the short term.

It is something that should be considered in the long term. I appreciate we have to deal with what is in front of us at the moment.

Storm Éowyn caused havoc, particularly across the west of the country. I know constituents and families who are living down laneways and looking at miles of forestry and the lines that are powering their homes. What has happened within the Department in relation to trying to protect the ESB grid and retain power for particularly vulnerable households and rural areas?

As the Deputy knows, there have been different committees and groups that have been dealing with this very important issue about, first of all, making safe the problem we had already and clearing underneath the existing lines and widening those corridors. Dealing with the sector on the widening of the corridors, different issues have arisen out of that. There is good work being done in strengthening the powers of the ESB and at the same time protecting the landowners, which is very important. I want to make it very clear to the committee that one thing that I would certainly not give any support to in any shape or fashion is that the ESB would say to a forestry owner it is clearing a corridor and it is up to the owner to maintain it. One of the biggest reasons you would have to say that would be if there were a safety issue. How could you say to a farmer that they have a digger there and it is up to them to keep underneath that line clear for the ESB? That would be outrageous because you would be telling a farmer then to operate machinery to keep the ground underneath ESB lines clear. The one thing we were always told about ESB lines was to stay away from them and not to operate machinery underneath them.

Has anything changed in the past year in terms of new felling licences and so on? It was a major issue. I know we have to protect farmers and forest, but there are vulnerable people living in rural areas. What has changed in terms of felling distances and new licences and what is planned in the Department in that regard?

An ESB Networks winter resilience 2025 plan is in place and is operational. Priority areas have been identified by the ESB for tree-cutting. These areas included those worst affected by the outages at the time the Deputy is speaking about. Some tree-cutting in the vicinity of ESB lines in these priority areas ahead of next winter has commenced. This is all happening with the agreement of any landowner involved because the landowner is important in all of this. Private landowner agreement is a key element in progressing the plan and the ESB is engaging with landowners in this regard. I emphasise, however, that the ESB will not have my backing in telling landowners that it is up to them to maintain areas underneath power lines, because that is not right. The ESB laid the line through the landowners' places in the first instance. The Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage is the lead Department for the ESB legislation on lines and forestry. There is engagement taking place with stakeholders in quarter 1. I understand it is expected this will be published by the end of quarter 2. The statutory instrument to nail down changes to the width, design and corridors is scheduled for after the Bill is published. We will all have involvement in that because it is important that members are all aware of what is happening, engage on it and, at all times, can speak up for the landowner and protect the landowner's interests.

I welcome the Minister of State and his officials. He said he wants to restore confidence. I and Senator Boyhan are veterans of this committee. In the previous term, forestry issues were the number one cross that we had to carry. My heart was broken. It was all negativity. I said on numerous occasions that we had lost confidence and needed to restore it, and the Minister of State has done that. I compliment him on that. We are so far down the road from where we were 12 months ago, it is unbelievable. Lest I give the Minister of State a swelled head, I will quote his late father's good friend and sparring partner, my former leader, Bertie Ahern, when he said that a lot is done but there is a hell of a lot more to do. I want to talk to the Minister of State about going forward and a bit of positivity because the calls I am getting about forestry are from people inquiring and interested. Twelve or 18 months ago, the calls I was getting were abusive about the state of forestry.

We are living in a world with Asian hornets flying around, bluetongue and all sorts of strains of avian flu. We are in a changed world. Is the Minister of State happy with our vigilance and biosecurity? Is he satisfied that we can keep out other potential diseases such as ash dieback?

The second issue the Minister of State mentioned in his opening statement was public bodies and public lands, but he did not put a target on that. How much timber does he think we can realise from getting public bodies on public lands sowing trees?

My last question is about the timber in construction steering committee. We have to start using timber. When we do, will we have the timber? Under the previous regime, before the Minister of State took over, we were doing a lot of talking in this committee about sowing trees that would be there forever and would not be harvested at all. We will not build houses with a tree if we cannot cut the tree down. When the Minister of State turns the construction industry around to start using more timber, as I hope he does, is he confident that we will have the timber for it?

I will start with biosecurity. I visited the laboratory and there is constant vigilance there. We should remember that when ash dieback came in to this country it was detected immediately by people in our Department, who acted as quickly as humanly possible. Are we doing everything to protect ourselves from beetles and such? As I said, our national forests and private forests have a good, clean bill of health. We are doing our best but could something happen? Of course it could. We always have issues like bluetongue and so on. Different issues will arise at different times. Even with exports, I have witnessed our new export market to China, where we are sending timber. I have seen the smoke bombs that are set off in the back of the truck, which is then sealed. When the container arrives in China, the first thing that is done is a check to see if the seal is intact. The evidence of the remainder of the smoke bomb in the truck shows that it went off and will have killed anything that might have been in the container. We are doing everything we can to do the same on our side. I have every confidence in our biosecurity.

The second question was on the steering group. The group has done great work. I visited Galway to see it. My understanding at one time was that nothing could hold up a building like steel could but that is wrong. I was shown timber that was manufactured to take the place of steel. From a fire point of view, this timber can be made as resilient and as strong as steel. Great research is being done on the use of timber.

I like the way the Senator framed his question, referring to people talking about growing trees that would be there forever and never used for building. I would take the exact opposite view. I want us to be commercial. I want Coillte to plant trees, grow them, cut them and make money. We have excellent people working in Coillte who are really determined to deliver for this State and pay dividends to the State, which the company is doing. We are currently harvesting between 4 million and 5 million cu. m of timber for construction. We have excellent timber for construction in this country. While the Senator realises the quality of timber that we have, members of the general public maybe do not realise that. The final timber in construction report will be brought to Cabinet shortly and recommendations will follow from that. I have sat in at meetings and seen the work the steering group is doing. It is not a talking shop with airy-fairy shooting the breeze about ideological viewpoints that mean nothing or go nowhere. These are working people who are interested in using our own produce and putting it to good use, and putting us in a situation with construction in Ireland where we will use more and more timber in a monetarily cost-efficient way. We are doing sensible things and using home-produced timber.

With regard to State lands, we contacted 82 organisations. This had never been done by the Department before. We wrote to, rang and canvassed those organisations, the same as if we were asking for a vote. It was a case of saying they had land and asking what they are thinking of doing with it. These organisations include local authorities, education and training boards, health boards and so on. We were not looking at land that could be used by them for any other purpose, for example, construction, but ground on which nothing was being done. We suggested planting trees on it. That would return a dividend to the local authorities and they could use that money for whatever they wish. Some 90,000 ha of that type of land that they own is idle. It is not rented to local farmers or being put to any good purpose, and it is not making any money. We are hoping to have potentially 4,000 ha planted in this wave. We have more work to do with this. Of the 82 organisations we contacted, we have since met 30, and they are really interested in planting. We have groups that are signed up to go. I can see this being a great success. It is a win-win for everybody because it is using land that is not being put to good use, generating income and giving us trees afterwards that we will cut down and saw up and then replant the ground.

I thank the Minister of State for attending and for his time. I acknowledge his pro-planting, common-sense approach, which he set out within days of taking his Ministry. He talked about being proactive and showing common sense. He talked about increasing tree cover and encouraging farmers to consider tree-planting as a complementary or supplementary income source. That is all positive.

I also want to acknowledge, because I was there and I know my colleagues were there around the country, that the Let's Talk Trees initiative was a very positive one and it was very much the Minister of State leading from the front. I cannot imagine how his officials keep with his pace, energy, commitment and vigour. I want to wish the Minister of State well.

I want to touch on the afforestations targets, the licensing and regulatory delays, on which the Minister of State and I have a different view, species diversity and sustainability and skills shortages. I want to acknowledge the people who put in the forestry data we receive every week. A lot of work goes into it. We sought this some years ago and it is exceptionally helpful because data is everything. When we can measure anything in data, we can tell the real story. I acknowledge the officials and Mr Delany in particular for the work that goes into that.

The Minister of State might just touch on the afforestation targets. We know that we are missing the annual targets. How are we going to crank that up?

First of all, the subject we were speaking about last, namely, using State-owned land, is going to massively help us in achieving or getting near to the targets we have set. Nobody ever thought about using that land before. Nobody ever actively canvassed. We are speaking to property managers in local authorities and county managers and the associations representing them, and they are all very interested because it is an absolute no-brainer and a good thing to do with land. The local authority members and the members of the ETBs are all buying into this and the feeling is that we should have done that long ago. That is one way we are going to get land.

The second thing is that the schemes we have are very attractive, with the amount of money that people can get over a 15-year or 20-year period in premium payments. There are 100% grants available for setting up a forest, so it is an attractive-----

I am conscious of the Minister of State's time and my time. We have a national target of 8,000 ha, so we have to keep the focus there, as the Minister of State knows. I do not doubt his commitment. Our commitment on this side of the House is to keep asking the questions. I will move on to the licensing and regulatory delays. The sector has suffered from a slow, bureaucratic licensing system, which has hindered, for example, felling and planting activities. I acknowledge things have improved, but we have a long way to go. Is the Minister of State happy that we are going in the right direction now?

I am happy that we are after landing in the direction. The Senator must not look at the length of time. Nobody now applying for a licence is complaining about the length of time they are waiting for the licence. The only person that might have an issue - and I am dealing with those problems every week - is if a situation arises where there is a complication because of some other matter. With regard to the actual time that it takes to process a licence, whether it is to plant or to clear, the Senator knows I merged the two licences, the clear-fell and the thinning, because that was a layer of bureaucracy that could be done away with.

I am sorry to cut across him but is the Minister of State happy with progress?

Yes, 100%.

Great. We will move on to species diversity and sustainability.

We are meeting the farmers' chapter deadlines. That is the main thing for the Senator to know-----

That is great.

We are well within them, by months.

I will move on. On species diversity and sustainability, we talked about the bark beetle when we discussed biosecurity. We also talked about the importance of diversification of species. We need to increase our ratio of increased diversity of trees. Does the Minister of State feel we are going in the right direction on these? I do not need long sentences. Is the Minister of State happy and confident that we are going in the right direction with that?

I have nothing but the utmost confidence. I will say one thing because maybe people here do not want to hear this, and I am referring to Deputy Kenny in particular. In 2024, 1,573 ha of land was planted. In 2025, the year of what the Deputy called the negativity, 2,527 ha were planted.

I am asking the questions.

In other words, those people were not worried or negative; they were positive. They are after planting and now they are collecting their premiums every year.

I thank the Minister of State but I am asking the questions, so I would appreciate it-----

Sorry, but I just had to get that in.

-----if he gave his time to my questions.

Skills shortages.

There is a shortage and the Minister of State should not tell me there is not. I have documents and letters I can send to him if he wants. There is a shortage of skilled workers in the harvesting, saw milling and specialist ecological roles needed to manage our forestry in an environmental and a sustainable way. How is that being addressed?

I am after visiting the colleges and where I was able to get in the door, I am after asking certain colleges to focus on new opportunities for students to go to those colleges in connection with our agricultural colleges. I will give as an example the college in Tralee. I am in talks with those people about running courses that would upskill and train people who could then go and work for this Department, Coillte or in the private sector.

I have got the gist of what the Minister of State is saying, but there is a lead-in time to all of that.

There is, but I could only start when I was able to start.

That is great, so he is on message.

I could not start before I was there-----

No, and he is doing it now.

-----and nobody did it before me.

I agree. I am not arguing with the Minister of State. It is great that progress is being made and we will track that progress. To finish, the Minister of State might not have time to answer this fully so he might need to do an essay on this and send it to us in writing. I ask him to clarify his position in relation to peatlands and soil. I have looked at press releases, and I know the Minister of State was misquoted on some occasions, suggesting that he advocated for the use of peaty-type soils. It became a bit modified and a bit loose, so we introduced this new category called peaty-type soils for planting and they were distinguished from deep peatlands. There was a big debate about that. The Minister of State does not have to use up any of his time. I have no more time left, but I would suggest, with the greatest respect, that the Minister of State send a briefing note on where he stands in relation to the planting of peaty-type soils. There are challenges around all of that. We have talked about trees falling down. We have ecological issues and challenges. We have issues with the level and depth of peaty-type soils. It is complex and it is not easy. It is nice to breeze it off as a little sort of peaty issue, but I think that warrants a considered response and I would very much welcome a written note on that.

I want 60 seconds to respond. I have allocated €2.7 million to examine the science of our forests on peatland. That process is under way and I am expecting mid-term reports on that. It is a very extensive survey. As regards the scientists who came out and criticised me, the only thing that was wrong with them was that they did not know bog from mineral soil from peaty-type soils. If they knew what they were talking about, they would have known I was not talking about planting on bog land. That is what they accused me of but I never said that. This project is called PeatFor and it will establish a network of targeted field experiments. These experiments will deliver knowledge about our carbon in peatland forests and will inform climate change policy and the sustainable management of all peatland forests. In the case of land that might currently be classified as ineligible, of which there is a lot and farmers want to plant it, I want to prove, from a scientific point of view, that there is nothing wrong with doing that.

Thank you. You asked for an extra minute and you got it.

The little memo I asked for would be helpful for clarity.

We will send that.

That is great, thanks. I appreciate the Minister of State's time.

The Minister of State has said that the planting on public lands initiative to create new forests on public land was a huge success. Will he outline what the uptake on that has been?

In his opening statement, the Minister of State said that afforestation is a voluntary land use choice for landowners. I ask the Minister of State to explain that to me because in cases where land that has been planted is handed down from father to son, that is not a choice for the person who inherits the land. They are tied into it even though, as I have said to the Minister of State previously, they have not signed a contract with anybody when it comes to that. They have basically been left with, as some might say, a noose around their necks. They cannot decide what happens to the land they have inherited. If they want to turn it into a duck pond or whatever they want to do with it, they do not have a choice. They are tied into what their father before them has done.

Like most agriculture schemes, it may last five years. If you opt out in the middle of a scheme, you are fined, which is fair enough. You stay the term and then you can opt to get back into it, but within afforestation you cannot. There is no opt-out and you are stuck in it. That needs to change. When somebody inherits the land, there has to be an opt-out for them, just like in other schemes. If somebody inherits land, the timber is cut and cleared and they choose not to replant it because they did not sign up for it, what is the timeline for the fines? How are they followed up? Of the people who felled trees of their own accord, rather than due to storms or anything like that, how many of them have replanted in the last, say, two years? I am thinking of people who perhaps felled their trees three years ago.

Has the Government bought any new lands to put under forest?

I thank the Deputy very much for the questions. When a family - a father, a mother, a grandfather or grandmother - decide to plant land, that is a decision they take at that time. They might not even have a family at all at that stage. They have made that decision, which, as the Deputy rightly points out, is voluntary and nobody has made them do it. As sure as the person who is inheriting inherits the land, they inherit the land practice or the land use that was there. The inheritors know that the people who came before them signed up - because you actually sign up to it - to a replanting obligation. If the Deputy is asking me a straight question as to whether that will change, the answer is it will not. That replanting obligation is there, was there and will be there in the future. It is not going to change.

To answer the other question, 6,000 ha are harvested and replanted each year. That is the average. About 6,000 ha are cut down and 6,000 ha are replanted. The Deputy might have individual cases, like all of us have. There are different reasons - personal stuff - that people do not want to replant. We all hear about that, but does the Deputy realise that 6,000 ha are replanted every year? That is an awful lot of land.

I know, but it should be a choice. The Minister of State referred in his opening statement to "a voluntary land use choice for landowners". It is not a choice for somebody who has inherited land. That statement is completely wrong because it is not a choice.

All right, but I will give the Deputy an analogy. Take a person like, for instance, Deputy Aird who is working very hard milking cows. God forgive me, but if he closes his eyes tomorrow morning, the person who will come after him will inherit the milking parlour and the cows.

I will tell you what, I am strongly thinking of standing in Kerry.

Deputy Newsome Drennan gets the comparison. In other words, they are inheriting the land use he is engaged in, so it is the same thing.

But I could turn that farm into a suckler farm. I could turn it into a forest or a chicken farm. I could do what I liked with it. I would not be tied into being a dairy farmer. If my father-in-law, or whoever, signed up to have their land under forestry, the person who was going to inherit the land would be stuck with that. If Deputy Aird was so kind as to give me his farm, I could do what I liked with it. I would not be tied into anything.

How are you all thinking about it?

I have done nothing wrong.

Sorry, Willie. The person would be tied into forestry.

They all want your land, Willie.

Let us give the Minister of State the opportunity to answer.

The Deputy is asking a very fair question but she is ignoring one small fact.

Go on.

When the person put up their hand, they did so voluntarily and they said they wanted to plant their land. The State came in and paid for the sodding, the plants, the work, the fencing and the fertiliser.

Not for it all.

I am sorry?

Not for all of it. The State gives grants. Grants do not cover it all. It is not a 100% grant.

It is 100%. Where did the Deputy get the idea it was not?

Does the Minister of State think the State actually owns the land then?

No, I never said that, but the Deputy was trying to say the grant did not cover 100%.

The State paid for it but the State does not own the land. It is the farmer.

Does the Deputy acknowledge that the grant is 100%, now that I have told her?

I am glad it is, but you still have to come up with-----

It is and it always was.

The State still should not own the lands. There should be a scheme where it is, say, five years like it is for SCEP or whatever other schemes.

Thank you, but we need to move on.

I am sorry but there was one other thing and I really need to know because Senator Collins asked about it as well.

There will be another opportunity.

It is on the fines.

There will be another opportunity to come in afterwards. I need to move on to Deputy Aird.

At what point does the Department follow up on the fines?

Deputy Aird, the floor is yours.

Just so Deputy Newsome Drennan understands, she is talking about farms as if the whole farm has been planted.

Minister, please.

She does realise 7 ha is the average amount of land-----

Minister, please.

-----planted on a farm.

Deputy Aird has the floor.

It is 7 ha, so whole farms are not affected.

Minister, out of respect for the committee Deputy Aird has the floor.

Sorry.

So the Minister of State is not going to fine them.

I thank the Minister of State for coming in. The felling licences were a huge problem and I acknowledge he has solved it. We will talk about that in a moment in the context of how much land is now being given over to afforestation. This country has traditionally been a food-producing country. We produce the best of food, as the Minister of State will acknowledge because there is Kerry lamb and everything like that down where he comes from. Between wind farms, solar panels and the Minister of State saying there will be an increase in afforestation - I ask him to tell me roughly where that is taking place - we are shrinking the land that is available for food production. Years ago, in my area, the Sliabh Bloom Mountains were done. The least you can do on a farm is 7 ha. Is that not correct?

That is the average.

What is the minimum?

It is 0.1 ha to get the aid.

That is grand. I have noticed that on a lot of farms, because of the global effect we are having, their contribution is to plant some trees. Some people are very conscious from that point of view and it is good if they can plant that amount and get a grant for it. I wanted to say that in my opening remarks.

The Minister of State mentioned 25% but if Coillte now says it has so far cleared only 25% of the storm-damaged site, what actions is the Department taking to find reputable markets and outlets for that timber? I would like a quick-fire situation because beside where I live, Cúil na Móna, the whole place is full of cut timber.

A total of 100,000 cu. m were certified for export to China. To put that in context, that is over 4,070 truckloads of timber that went to China, which is a place we had never sent timber before.

I accept that and thanks very much for that.

That was a market the industry-----

Was that private timber or State timber?

That was private timber, so that is farmers-----

So it is a private price between China and the farmer. Is that correct?

Correct.

I will not ask for the price.

It was a great achievement to sell 100,000 cu. m.

I accept that. I am after telling you how good a man you are. How often has the task force set up following Storm Éowyn met and what have been its standout achievements to date, given the position with Coillte? That is the task force the Minister of State set up. I want to know about its achievements.

We all came together immediately after the storm. One of the first things we realised was that there was going to be a big logistical problem with using the machinery to get the timber out safely - safety is the big thing - and getting it transported to the sawmills and getting the market right.

That is the standout achievement and the Minister of State is happy with that. That is grand.

Remember, we had no reconstitution scheme and now we have a scheme in place worth €55 million to help compensate farmers to replant.

The combination of the licences-----

Has any progress been made with private forest certification? Have the structures required for privately owned forest certification been set up yet?

I have that all sorted.

That is grand. It is all sorted.

We have a national certification scheme and a new chairman in charge of the certification scheme. It is up and running. It is brilliant. It is going to be the best thing since sliced pan because people will have a plan to certify their forest. It is going to be-----

The Minister of State is happy that is done 100%.

A hundred per cent.

I would like to ask about Storm Éowyn providing an opportunity to change our timber payment system for private growers to a volume system rather than a weight-based system. Has progress been made on this? I appreciate the Minister of State cannot interfere with the free market.

Before I answer that, I just want to finish something I did not get a chance to. Another attractive thing about the national certification scheme is that the farmer who owns the forest will get money from the Department to pay for the plan so he will not have to pay for this plan himself. He will be able to engage the registered forester, get certified and get money from this Department and an electronic management plan. It is €1,200 per plan-----

What about the private growers, who have a volume-based rather than weight-based system?

I answered that question for the IFA two weeks ago at its 71st AGM.

I was not at that.

I will give the Deputy the answer. When it comes to how they will be paid, I asked the sector - farming organisations, those representing land owners, sawmills-----

I am asking Deputy Healy-Rae as the Minister of State.

I asked those people to away from Agriculture House, sit down together and argue it out themselves because I cannot interfere in how they will be paid. As the Deputy knows, there are three to four different ways of being paid-----

For timber.

Yes.

That is all I asked.

I want what the Deputy wants. I want to ensure the person who owns the timber gets the best possible price for their timber.

This came up earlier but I want to get the Minister of State's answer again. Would he consider the option of long-term contracts that would allow for the possibility to return agricultural lands to future generations to encourage farmers to commit land to forestry and to meet planting targets? The Minister of State said the targets are oversubscribed. Is that correct? It is way ahead of the target. If that is what the Minister of State is saying, I will withdraw that. What was said?

We are not gone over our targets.

Will the Minister of State answer that question then?