Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Walsh for his concise presentation. It was more valuable because it was concise. On the reconstitution scheme, I understood the Minister to say that 1,600 ha have been restored at a cost of €4.4 million. I asked him this question and I thought he said there was another 16,000 ha. That would mean another €44 million or €45 million in compensation would be required. That is just basic compensation. Can I extract from Mr. Walsh's presentation that this scheme was a failure insofar as the money did not reach the people for whom it was intended and that various intermediaries captured money from it along the way?

Once the disease becomes notifiable, forest owners have a very limited time to address the problem. It is similar to TB. The scheme had all the qualities of a TB scheme but at least under the TB scheme there was a compensation system that was tried and tested and agreed by the stakeholders. Was this scheme imposed on forest owners? Did they have any input into it? I tried to find out from the Minister about the stakeholders in the industry and I am still none the wiser. I admit I could be stupid and might not have understood what he was saying but as far as I could hear, everyone in the place was involved other than somebody representing the people who were affected. That was my gist of it. The witnesses might give a view as to whether they had any input at stakeholder or committee level into the way this debacle was handled because it was a massive failure of bureaucracy. The bureaucrats are very sharp. If one wanted to do something with one's house, they would be out like a shot but in this case they failed at a fundamental level. The problem is that the consequences are being visited on forest owners and there are implications for the individuals involved. If there are 1,600 ha to 1,700 ha, how many individuals are involved?

I suggested to the Minister that a proper forestry stakeholder committee be set up, which would involve the people who the witnesses represent, among others. Let us call them the small people because it is like everything in Ireland. There are many advocates for the big shots. I know that from my own area. I have a good record of speaking up for the smaller farmers. I am not too worried about the big ones. They have many advocates and can find ways to make their voices heard. Would the witnesses be prepared to serve on a stakeholder committee of that nature?

I am interested in the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS, aid. I have a question down to the Minister, which may not be answered until October. Only 37% or 38% of TAMS money is allocated. Could the witnesses elaborate on the TAMS measure for grant aid for small forestry machinery? I do not regard them as huge machines. One would hardly see some machines costing €500,000. I do not like the idea of TAMS money going to prop up an unviable project. The witnesses might elaborate on that.

My final question is on the environmental impact assessment, the planning authorities and the contribution of funding. The implication of that is that forest owners would end up being over the 10 ha and would have to prepare for that and have significant funding outlays as a result.

I refer to the possibility of ash dieback disease not being eradicated. I recall saying to somebody here that the TB scheme - I am using that analogy again - started in the 1950s. A famous leader of Deputy Cahill's, who later became President of Ireland, spoke about draining the Shannon. There is a better chance of the Shannon being drained than TB being eradicated in cattle. What worries me is that if this disease cannot be eradicated, what will happen then? Is that the reason the alternative of forest owners going back into grassland is being advocated? Why would they go back to that if they always have that fear? Is there something we do not know that might lead to ultimate eradication and allow them go back in, commence a new scheme and allow the 15-year process to start again? Is that what they are advocating? The witnesses might respond to those questions. I thank them for a very worthwhile presentation.