Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is perfect. I will put a few questions and make a few comments before coming back to Mr. White. I was somewhat surprised at the reference to the fact the IFA and SEEFA have also called for the implementation of the review recommendations. It is almost as if the tables have been turned here. I do not hold out much hope for any of these recommendations and I will say why in a few moments. There are 13 recommendations in this report, which uses language such as the following: "A co-ordinated approach"; "DAFM [Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine] should re-examine articles 494-633 of Communication of the Commission"; "A simplified [approval] process"; "It should be made clearer", "Re-establishment and maintenance costs"; "A be-spoke ash die-back re-establishment annual payment is required"; and "DAFM should explore the potential for a one-off ex gratia payment". That is in recommendation No. 10, so all the Department is talking about doing is "exploring the potential". It is not saying any more. The review then states that "ash die-back should be used as a learning opportunity". That is the sort of language used in this report. The conclusions then use words such as "review" and seeking to "understand", "consider" and "explore". What does all of that mean? It is all vague.

I am not here to make a personal attack on the Minister or the Department other than to say that this review is exceptionally disappointing given everything LTWO members have experienced, the road they have travelled and the huge investment that has been made. Infections in ash saplings came into this country, in most cases unregulated, unquarantined and potentially in breach of EU regulations and licences. It is important to say that these were only potential breaches. The whole area was unregulated. Mr. White went into private forestry, as did many other people, in good faith and in the hope that he would have a sustainable land use enterprise. I am familiar with this business and I know too many people who have suffered and are broken in spirit following their attempt to start an enterprise.

The LTWO contributed to the review but none of that is recognised. Anything can be acknowledged in words and everything can be explored but the crucial point is that you cannot cash it. The recommendations are a pig in a poke. It is all pie in the sky. I read the review again and again and having read the recommendations, that is my reading of it. I am deeply concerned. The LTWO might be shocked by this but that is my initial take, not on the LTWO's submission but, more important, on the recommendations.

Mr. White acknowledged that after a few years the Minister delivered a report but why did it take so many years? The issue has got worse. On every street in rural and urban Ireland, including Merrion Square across the road, ash trees are falling on to the road. The review recommends that a co-ordinated approach of clearance be undertaken at county and regional level. I have checked with the County and City Management Association and others and there is no funding in place for this. No funding has been identified for the local authorities. Who is responsible and who will pay? Will it be the landowner or the local authorities? We should forget about the co-ordination because the bottom line is who will pay for this. That is a concern. I do not want to be too negative and I will not make reference to other organisations that are not represented here today because that would not be fair. However, I took the time to check out some of the big players and I am shocked that they are accepting this. It is not good enough. Farmers like Mr. White are being left far too short as regards what they are entitled to.

I will take the LTWO through a few issues. I will not talk about the IFA because it does not have representatives here. We know what the recommendations are. In simple terms, this issue is not being treated as a national emergency, as the LTWO describes it. That is an important point to make. The LTWO says its members will not sign up to the RUS. I understand the reason for that. It is a common issue we are hearing so I do not need Mr. White to tease it out. The Department will not be particularly happy with that.

The LTWO states: "The future of Irish forestry rests upon proper implementation of the report's recommendations in full". Does Mr. White seriously have confidence that the limited proposals in the 13 recommendations will be sufficient to give him redress and resolve the issues he has identified? Let us deal with this question. Does Mr. White have confidence that he will get adequate and appropriate redress as a result of this?