In beginning my consideration of the Forestry Bill it is important to put on the record the response of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to it. I will be putting their view into context later in what I have to say on the Programme for National Recovery. Congress welcomed the decision of the Government to bring on this legislation but said, in their statement that, first, the Government should give sufficient resources to the new State company to increase tree planting and to develop a forest product industry; secondly, that action should be taken quickly to create the 2,000 jobs promised in the national programme in planting and in downstream wood industries and, thirdly, to seek more money from the European Economic Community for forestry. That was the bones of the guarded welcome from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. That immediately raises a point which worries me in my reading of this legislation, and it is in regard to funding which is available from Europe.
It saddens me to look at the statistics quoted by the Minister in his presentation this morning, about the disproportionate funding for private as opposed to public sector afforestation. The imbalance is unacceptable. The facts mentioned by the Minister stand out at a level which we cannot put up with. I would like to hear from the Minister an explanation as to what fight the Government have put up in Europe to get more funding for the State afforestation plan. There seems to be some semblance of negligence in that area and, perhaps, the Minister will explain it to us. The Minister referred to it in his speech but did not actually explain it. I know what the problem is. The problem is of course, that the EC budget only extends as a support of the private sector, private afforestation but what I want to know is what efforts we have made to change from that position. That is my first question and much of what follows will depend on the answer to it.
The Bill, as we are well aware, commits us to a further £200 million over the next four or five years, or whatever period of time is mentioned in the Bill. If some of that money could come from Europe there would be an immediate saving to our budget. First, I want to know if we are pushing for that money. What is the plan to get money out of Europe to support the afforestation policy? Secondly, if we do get money from Europe, out of which budget is it likely to come? In other words, is it out of the agricultural Vote? It seems to me that this might be the problem and that there is a nettle which the Government lack the political will to grasp in this case. The money is available in Europe but I believe it is only available through the agricultural Vote. I believe that the agricultural lobby here in strong enough, and is too strong, to prevent the Government channelling some of the money from the agricultural Vote of Europe towards afforestation. In other words, it is going down the line of least resistance as it were towards those groups who are pressurising the Government for the money. I would appreciate if the Minister would deal with that in some detail when replying.
In the legislation we are looking at £1 billion of the State's resources being transferred. It is very hard to put a figure like £1 billion in context. All the cuts last year, and all the cuts the Minister for Finance and the Government are looking for this year plus almost half as much again would just about make up the amount of State resources we are transferring to the company in this legislation It is very serious when we are talking about £1 billion worth of the resources of the State and we had better do this right. Not only is there £1,000 million involved but, additionally, the Bill allows for a further £200 million to be added to further support the setting up of the forestry board over the next four years. That amounts to £1,200 million and because it is not the kind of money a worker, trade unionist or ordinary person going about his or her business can easily grapple with. I just think again about the greed buds of the capitalists who will look upon this money as easy pickings somewhere down the road.
We are taking £1,200 million that is at the moment controlled and owned by the State and putting it into a semi-State commercial company in such a way — I will refer to this later — that the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Energy between them can decide to sell or move out of. In other words, this £1,200 million worth which belongs to all of us, we all have a share in it however small, can be sold off to the private sector in a number of years time.
What kind of people are interested? There are hundreds of millions of pounds managed by the managers of, for instance, pension funds particularly. Those managers are not interested in a quick profit on their investment this year; they are interested in putting their money into a secure area with sound and continuous capital growth. Nothing would better describe afforestation than capital growth. Those people would be quite ready, willing and able to buy into these companies in two, three or four years time and would not be looking for a quick return on their money because a tree planted today is not worth a shilling as timber for 30 or 40 years. I will refer to other things such as biomass on which there is a quicker return later. In general terms, afforestation is a 30 or 40 year investment.
I want it clarified for me the kind of protections that are built into this legislation to stop any attempt by the State to give away this major resource to the private sector because it could be easily sold to fund managers who would buy into it. Every year a tree grows another foot and the forest increases in value. There are hundreds of thousands of cubic metres of timber growing each year and, therefore, the capital investment is appreciating and, at the same time, moving into profitability. This could also wreck the total afforestation plan. In the Minister's presentation this morning he referred at some length to the fact that what we are doing today is continuing the work of those people who had planned afforestation before us and sowing the seeds of a greater afforestation policy in the future. That is fine as long as we do not sell out to the quick-buck merchants in four or five years time who may sell off these trees, sapplings or half-grown trees at a profit and, therefore, denude us of afforestation again.
Those things would only happen if the company was to sell out. In other words, I would not be a bit worried if everything was as is provided for in the Bill. The only part of the Bill I am referring to is section 21 which allows the Minister to sell shares, in other words to dispose of the company. I want to know how we are guarding against that. I do not believe we are. We are leaving ourselves wide open. I believe that forestry could be in profitability within six years. The fact that in his presentation the Minister was talking about supporting it at the level of approximately £50 million a year for the next four years on average means that he probably also sees that it would be moving into profitability in about five or six years time. I would like to have that responded to. I will be putting forward amendments on Committee Stage to address the problems created by that.
On the question of the sale of land, let me say first of all that I welcome the improvement in this section as opposed to that in the initiated Bill which did not allow for the acquisition of land, or at least it seemed not to allow the acquisition of land. This has now been corrected and I welcome that. In welcoming it, let me say I am not opposed to the selling of land. I have said consistently that in these areas there is no point in hanging millstones around the neck of the State or semi-State Bodies. The company should be commercial. For instance, if the board have a small number of pockets of land which they would be better off disposing of, if they have a number of stands of wood which they could sell off to buy a larger attractive piece of land in order — in terms of economies of scale — to get something that would be more economically viable, that is the way they should operate. I am not objecting to the sale of land on that basis. I would object, of course, to the selling out, to the total liquidising of assets. I think as well that that has been a strengthening part of the Bill, the part that allows them to do those two things.
In terms of the objectives outlined in the Bill in section 12, I find them very narrow. I looked carefully at what the Minister said this morning. I wonder where it ties in, for instance, in the development of the tourism industry, where it ties into the enhancement of the environment. That should actually be an objective. O.K., so it is not very sexy for these commercial companies to want to enhance the environment, as it were; but I certainly believe that this should be tied straight into their objectives, that whatever they do should enhance the natural beauty of the countryside in one way or another. I feel that that should have been written into the objectives of the Bill in section 12. "To establish and carry on the woodland industries"— I have some idea what is envisaged by that but I would welcome a fuller interpretation or a broadening out of that particular objective.
We are back again, in section 15, to the old chestnut of the appointments to the board. I will be speaking at some length on the question of worker-directors shortly, but I will come back and deal with that separately. But this reads "jobs for the boys", I know it is painful, Minister. Of course, it is painful. Reality jars. It says "The Chairman"— I presume that is bi-sexual in its interpretation and I will be putting down a proposal that that should be replaced by "Cathaoirleach" or "Chairperson"— and other directors shall be appointed and may be removed from office by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Finance. What does that mean? Let me protect the Minister by saying that leaving it there leaves you wide open to political pressure. They will all be on to you.