Paul Daly (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the IFA delegation. I have a list of scribbled questions in front of me but most of them are inappropriate following the answers given to the first questions from Deputy Fitzmaurice. I wanted to try to get a handle on how the negotiations on all these issues were going with the Department but the witnesses said in their opening reply to Deputy Fitzmaurice that they were a year looking for a meeting and only got one this morning. In that context, there is not much point in me pursuing the issue of how they see things going forward, based on their negotiations or meetings with the Department, both from the ash dieback point of view and the list of problems that have been well thrashed out here. I may forget the theory I had that the IFA had more access to Agriculture House than Oireachtas Members. Our guests have knocked that one on the head this evening for certain.

The other issue, which is a common denominator in terms of what Deputy Fitzmaurice raised, is confidence in the sector.

With regard to the IFA's membership, is there an appetite there? Without stating the obvious, we have been dealing with this issue since the election of 2020 and we know all the problems at this stage. I think we also know the solutions but it is about getting the people who can implement the solutions to see it as we see it, and that is where it is all breaking down. The IFA has confirmed that it is finding the same thing. If there was a move in this regard, is there an appetite for it among the IFA membership? Is confidence shot so badly that it is irreparable? That is one question.

Is there also an appetite for the aforementioned agroforestry, for want of a better word, for example, a hectare of broadleaf trees? This is taking into consideration that while people might get the premium and they do not have to apply for a licence, it is only for 100% broadleaf, so it is 0% productive timber, based on what the timber industry representatives told us only an hour ago while the IFA representatives were present. Farmers may be looking at having trees there for life and the biggest problem is that people have to replant. If conifers were allowed in that agroforestry, does the IFA think there would more interest from the farming community, who would see a small bit of return and could replant if they so desired? If it is going to be broadleaf, do the witnesses think that is off-putting, or is there an appetite among the IFA membership for that?

Without asking the witnesses to repeat themselves, is the IFA making any progress on the ash dieback issue? From our perspective, it seems no progress has been made on that. While the IFA meetings are as frequent as I thought they were, is there a possibility as part of its deliberations that it will find an acceptable solution to the ash dieback issue? The witnesses highlighted a factor that has not got much airtime here, which is the issue of safety with regard to one-off trees in roadside hedges. Most of the deliberations we have had to date on ash dieback would have been more with people who had ash forest. It is a good point that was raised in that this is a safety concern for the general public. I ask the witnesses to elaborate on that. Has the IFA raised that with the Department and what kind of feedback has it got on that issue?