Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have several questions, some of which are linked to those posed by Deputy Martin Kenny. It has been very interesting to hear Coillte's response to the issues raised and I would like to address some of them. Mr. Stanley said that some of the partnership meetings will take place over the phone, which is amazing. I wonder how many of the partnership meetings actually took place by means of phone calls. Will the witnesses expand on that? I do not think many farmers would take a phone call from Coillte to ask how things are going as being a meeting.

In regard to the figures on the seven complaints referred to by Deputy Martin Kenny, the witnesses said that 80% of the grants still have the annual premium from the Department, so I would think the seven cases apply to people outside the grant period. If so, that means there are 126, which is 5.5%, and, therefore, it is more of a problem than Coillte - which is suggesting a rosier picture - is presenting. Is that the case? The figures are making it look a lot better but I wonder why Coillte would be here if just seven people out of 630 were having problems. To have seven out of 126 is a lot more significant. It may even be seven out of 20 who are having a problem, although we do not know. I wonder about that.

In the context of the clusters in east Galway and Kilkenny, Coillte owns processing plants around the country, including in Waterford and Clonmel. Is there any correlation between the clusters that have the problems and the Coillte plants?

We are discussing the problems farmers are having but it seems there have also been problems for foresters dealing with Coillte. I refer to a report published by the timber raw materials supply chain sector on Irish forestry practices and procedures in 2008-2009, with which I am sure the witnesses are familiar. This highlights many of the same problems they had in dealing with Coillte such as, for example, the manner of awarding contracts, the volume of timber to be harvested and the arbitrary and uneconomic rates of payment by Coillte. All of those issues correspond with the difficulties farmers are having. I wonder if there is a cultural trait within Coillte which contributes to this problem. The report states there is ample evidence of non-compliance by Coillte with its forest certification responsibilities, which the witnesses mentioned are important for Coillte regarding its contracts with farmers. Is there correspondence in this regard? Is there a problem within Coillte overall in terms of its dealings with the people it has to deal with, such as farmers, growers, foresters, harvesters and transport people, who may be in here with a problem at some stage in the future? Is there an ongoing cultural problem with which Coillte needs to deal?