Susan O'Keeffe (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. I share the concern about Ministers not being available. Perhaps the witnesses can afford some clarity about the reasons given. Mr. Glennon said that the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, will not meet them on the proposed merger. Is that an interpretation or was it said by him in a letter? Perhaps Mr Glennon can clarify. The witnesses referred to meeting the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Hayes, and perhaps this was instead of the Minister, Deputy Coveney. It is an important issue and we need to know more before we go further.

Mr. Glennon's presentation gives the impression of a loss of trust in the Departments concerned. Various observations are made, such as, "In addition, the report should at least acknowledge the EU’s forest strategy" and "A strategy document without a well resourced implementation plan is practically worthless." It seems Mr Glennon is suggesting these things might happen. Am I reading it incorrectly that he has lost faith and lost trust in the Departments concerned? Like others, I share the concern that we have policy review group activity, a Bill and a proposed merger. Where they align and in what order they come is something we should take up. There are many proposals for change occurring simultaneously. They seem to provide some confusion.

I am a small bit confused by Mr. Little's observations. He laid out how well the sector is doing and we think that is a good thing, particularly for rural Ireland.

The IFFPA goes on to suggest the Bill is too focused on enforcement and it talks about it being overbearing and draconian and that it will perhaps delay or stop investment. It strikes me as a bit contradictory, where one has an industry that is doing well - the IFFPA talked about the potential within the industry - to state that this is draconian and overbearing. Things are going well but we need some kind of regulation and perhaps the IFFPA's criticism of the regulation is over the top. There will always be investors in a successful area and while some of the investors may change, not everybody will walk away, put down their tools and say "Enough already, this is too draconian". I do not think the future of the timber industry is at risk in the way the IFFPA described because of regulation. Private businesses always complain and lobby about regulation, as they should, but I wonder if the IFFPA has gone a bit too far in its description of that.

Things are going pretty well and there is potential. I know the IFFPA is concerned to develop that, which it should be, and so are we. However, I wonder if it has gone too far in regard to that kind of language. It suggests, therefore, that it does not want regulation, which is probably not quite right in that we need regulation. I am not an expert on regulation, or on regulation of the forestry industry, but I would be interested in the IFFPA's observations.