Mr. John O'Connell:

It is an absolute disgrace that this sort of money is being spent on administration. It should be going into planting trees which are so necessary in this climate crisis we find ourselves in. That is all I have to say on that. It is not acceptable. The only people making profit from forestry is the forest service. That is where the money seems to be going and it looks as if, as a certain statesman said, the definition of success is to face failure after failure without a loss of enthusiasm. This is what the public is being presented with. To say we have solved the problem of ash dieback is a fabrication. It is spin of the highest order. We are the producers and countless numbers of us throughout the country have been left to drift without any consideration. We are the pioneers who contributed to biodiversity, the environment, public good and climate mitigation without any recognition for the past 30 years. We have sequestered vast amounts of carbon dioxide, whereby 26,000 ha of ash has sequestered 4.225 million tonnes of carbon. That has now been squandered. Converted into euro, it equals a vast amount if that is multiplied by 56. We pay carbon taxes on the price per tonne of carbon and we do not get any benefit for the carbon we are sequestering. The way we are being treated is an absolute disgrace. Criminals would be treated better.

They would be given the benefit of the doubt. The forest service was responsible for bringing this disease in to this country. We live on an island with prevailing westerly winds. It is a windborne spore that travels no more than 30 km. It had very little chance of getting into this country without coming in on imported plants. It was an absolute disgrace that was allowed in. It is tantamount to vandalism. I have 10 ha of ash. I have a 15 ha plantation that was used as an example to all and sundry of best husbandry. I would be ashamed now to allow anybody in. It is a danger to my family, myself and anybody entering. There is no solution to this. The solution should be immediate. The forest service was responsible for phytosanitary security. This goes back to, for instance, 1991, when Mr. Diarmuid McAree, the chief forestry inspector in charge of the forest service, said the objective of the forest service is "To develop forestry to a scale and in a manner which maximises its contribution to national, economic and social well being [he well-being has been totally forgotten about, along with the health and safety and mental anguish people are facing with this problem] on a sustainable basis and in a manner which is compatible with the protection of the environment." We have contributed hugely to all of this aspiration.

Then, the protection of the forest estate from pests, diseases and other threats involves the implementation of the forestry aspects of the EU planned health directive. The forestry inspectorate is supposed to survey the forest estate in respect of forest health, condition and carry out inspections of forest plant material and timber imports to ensure compliance with EU forest protection regulations. Is it doing that? I wonder. Again, there should be no major delay in providing an efficient service to farmers on all forestry matters. It has totally fallen down on every aspect of what it has set out to do, yet we are the ones who are penalised. We are penalised at every hand's turn. The position we have been placed in is utterly unacceptable.