Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine debate -
Wednesday, 25 Oct 2023

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine's Response to Ash Dieback: Limerick and Tipperary Woodland Owners

An Cathaoirleach

The purpose of the second session of today's meeting is to examine the report of the independent review group into the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine's response to ash dieback. The committee will hear from representatives from Limerick and Tipperary Woodland Owners, LTWO: Mr. Simon White, chairman, Mr. John O’Connell, vice chairman, and Ms Maura Duggan, secretary. They are all very welcome to this evening's session. The opening statement has been circulated to all members.

It is with regret that we have the witnesses back this evening because this saga has gone on for far too long. One thing I cannot get my head around is that we have to have state aid rules to give financial compensation to people affected by ash dieback. I cannot comprehend that or what the rationale behind it is to say that people would get the premium and that would involve state aid capacity. We might take it in comparison with the cattle herds. Cattle herds qualified for premium but farmers were stopped from getting TB compensation. That is one thing I cannot understand.

I want to compliment the witnesses. They really kept the fire burning on this issue. Hopefully, we will eventually get to a satisfactory resolution of the plight people have suffered. I am on the record as saying that I have never before seen farmers with such disease devastation entering their crops and farmlands and who have had access to compensation. I ask the chairman to give his opening statement and then I will open up the floor to the members.

Mr. Simon White

First, many thanks are due to the Cathaoirleach and all the committee members for the invitation to appear before them again today. I will first introduce our representatives and then give a brief outline of our response to this review report and concerns regarding the official response to date. With me today is our secretary, Ms Maura Duggan, and vice chairman, who members may remember, Mr. John O'Connell.

As members will know, win LTWO have been at the forefront of representing ash plantation owners. This is our fourth time presenting to this and previous committees since 2019. From the beginning, we have been consistent and sent out no mixed messages when lobbying or to those we represent. With fair dues to the committee members from across all political divides, they have accepted that the affected landowners have been dealt an enormous injustice. It is definitely arguable that the inadequate initial response by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, through its forest service, was through a mistaken belief that the measures it chose might work. Since 2017, however, there has been no justification to hide behind this for the way in which it treated affected landowners. Only a few days ago, the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, was noted saying on television that justice delayed is justice denied. That is the way we feel.

With our experience, we were highly sceptical as to what this review might be set up to accomplish. In the interests of exploring all avenues, however, we decided to meet with the three independent expert reviewers and were immediately impressed by the way they engaged with each group in researching the issue so comprehensively. While we suspected that commissioning this review was just an exercise to again delay taking action, we have to freely commend the Minister of State, Senator Hackett, on finally commissioning an independent review. She promised a review of ash dieback as far back as the spring of 2021, but at least we have it now.

We gratefully recognise that this committee published its report entitled Issues Impacting the Forestry Sector in Ireland, dated 2 March 2021, in which it recommended practically everything to do with ash dieback resolution that we had advocated. It is regrettable that the situation was deemed urgent back then, yet none of the action needed was undertaken by the Minister of State and her officials. We are, therefore, justifiably concerned that the recommendations in this review, even though it was commissioned by the Minister of State, could suffer the same fate and be found gathering dust on the shelves of the Department many years from now, but somehow, I do not think the public will accept that.

At this point, we gratefully welcome the findings of this review and thank the three reviewers for their recommendations. Those we represent have been totally vindicated once again. Sadly, however, this is not enough. This review will only be of benefit if the recommendations are implemented in full.

Since we hosted the first national ash dieback conference in March, there has been a significant unified call from private forestry representative groups, including the Irish Farmers' Association, IFA, and organisations in the wider field, such as the Social Economic Environmental Forestry Association, SEEFA, for immediate implementation of the review recommendations.

The recommendations are quite simply set out as follows. Ash dieback is national emergency for which rapid action response is imperative because standing trees are becoming more dangerous and less valuable with each lost opportunity to deal with the disease.

Equity is needed for ash plantation owners. A new partnership arrangement, involving landowners in a designated task force to detail and manage a specific new scheme, is a must. There must be time-bound objectives and targets in the management of this scheme. The State must pay for clearance, replanting or returning to other production and offset losses encountered pending restoration to established forest status. There must be a sufficient budget set aside to cover the loss of asset valuation of the trees. Full implementation of the report's recommendations is vital to restore trust and confidence in forestry as a whole.

It is worrying to us that the Minister of State and her officials, having been given this report more than five weeks ago, have failed to approach ash dieback representative groups with a view to setting up the recommended task force envisaged in the recommendations. The ash task force must include growers. We are more than willing to play our part. That does not mean we must be the ones to do it, but our representatives need to do it. According to the report, this co-operation is warranted by such a catastrophic disease. In the sparse official utterances on the subject since the review was published, there appears to be a lack of any sense of urgency in implementing the report's recommendations or recognition that there is an emergency.

The initial response of both the Minister and Minister and State to the report was to call for ash plantation owners to sign up to the reconstitution and underplanting scheme, RUS. In light of this scheme having been utterly trashed by the reviewers as unfit for purpose and silviculturally flawed, this call is repugnant to our members. The promise now being given that if any amendments are made to the RUS, applicants will be eligible to receive them, does not go down too well with plantation owners. The report states that the process for handling and processing RUS applications was an utter failure. There is reference to workstream 3 in Project Woodland. That project is over and workstream 3 remains incomplete.

An Cathaoirleach

I apologise for interrupting Mr. White. I must go to the Dáil Chamber for a vote. Senator Daly will take the Chair during my absence. I assure Mr. White that he has my full support in trying to get a satisfactory resolution to this issue.

Mr. Simon White

I thank the Cathaoirleach.

Senator Paul Daly took the Chair.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Paul Daly)

I apologise for the interruption and ask Mr. White to proceed.

Mr. Simon White

Workstream 3 in Project Woodland dealt with organisational development within the forest service. The review points to a significant cultural problem within the service. There are many really talented and dedicated personnel in the service ranks who have enormous potential to turn around the demise in forestry. The cultural malaise appears to be more in the relatively recent direction of the service, where the idea of providing a service and serving customers does not seem to be the priority.

Dead ash plantation owners are not going to sign up to the RUS. The top personnel in the Department's forest service who are advising the Minister and Minister of State appear reluctant to accept the reality that the RUS is dead in the water. It has been so from its inception because it was designed to achieve a set of impossible goals. The needs of the plantation owners affected by the disease were completely omitted. Technical flaws and leadership failures by the State in the introduction of the RUS led to minimal uptake and further negativity by farmers towards forestry and the Department's forest service. The review points to a better way to solve this problem. We wish to assist and be a part of the solution.

The present focus of the forest service is to forge ahead with promoting the new afforestation schemes, while leaving ash dieback resolution to be dealt with sometime in the future. This approach is fundamentally flawed. Probably the most salient finding in the review is that natural justice would appear to demand state aid for loss of forestry due to disease. It notes that EU policies do not follow this principle. The report further states:

The heightened awareness of woodland disease by farmers arising from the ash Die-back issue brings the State Aid limitations into sharp focus as the State seeks accelerated afforestation to meet Climate targets. Given that forestry objectives in Ireland are heavily dependent on persuading farmers to make a permanent land use change to woodland, this is likely to be a long-term challenge for successive forestry programmes.

The report points out a path for innovative ways to bring about natural justice and recommends doing so. This is something we hope to develop further in the discussions.

The future of Irish forestry rests upon proper implementation of the report's recommendations in full as the immediate priority. We need a straightforward disaster-type response. This must entail a simplified approach, with fast-track permission to clear the trees. We must identify the machinery needed to deal with this task and make sure it is available. The recommended ex gratia upfront payment is vital to help people badly hit by unnecessary losses caused by the official inaction. Income support payments are vital to help people affected to survive while their plantations grow and restore some of what they had.

We are not alone in holding the opinion that the forestry programme will not succeed until ash dieback is sorted once and for all. If ash dieback is not resolved, the forestry risk issues that came to light with the disease will gain a lot more attention. When landowners seriously assess the risks involved in planting under the new programme's terms and conditions, they will be very slow to sign up to the new schemes. Those with sense will seek legal and family advice. In today's land market, there are many other more lucrative ways of land utilisation that do not entail permanency of land use and the unreasonable responsibility for dealing with the very real risk of disease in afforestation. Landowners look at what has been happening to the 6,500 landowners who planted ash for profit and they see that they are being enticed by similar incentives. Farmers are not fools and the forest service directors should take note of that.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to present the views of the ash plantation owners affected by this disease. We do not pretend to have all the answers but we are willing to help in finding them.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Paul Daly)

I thank Mr. White. Before calling Senator Boyhan, it would be remiss of me not to note that when I read the submission from Mr. White's group, with which we have met before and with which I fully sympathise for the turmoil its members have been put through, I was struck by how magnanimous is the submission. It is worthy of praise that Mr. White has welcomed the review and complimented the reviewers and the Minister of State. I know what this issue has cost those affected and how much turmoil it has created in their lives. The first thing that struck me in the statement, before any of the facts, is how magnanimous it is, on which I compliment Mr. White.

Mr. Simon White

I thank the Acting Chairman.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Paul Daly)

Senator Boyhan has 15 minutes for questions and answers.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I will not take that much time. I welcome Mr. White, Ms Duggan and Mr. O'Connell. I note the Acting Chairman's comments about their presentation being magnanimous. I must be honest and frank in saying I was somewhat surprised by the tenor and tone, which was very positive. I do not share their positivity. I say that because it reflects my initial response when I read the paper, which I have considered carefully.

I acknowledge the work being done by Limerick and Tipperary Woodland Owners. Will Mr. White confirm whether the organisation is affiliated to any umbrella group such as SEEFA?

Mr. Simon White

We work with all the other groups and they have supported everything we have put forward.

Senator Victor Boyhan

The LTWO is an independent group.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Paul Daly)

The LTWO is an independent group in its own right.

Mr. Simon White

Yes, we are independent. We are just a small group that took this on. Nobody else was taking it on so we became the voice. We are a small representative group and we work with everybody affected by dieback.

Senator Victor Boyhan

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?

Mr. Simon White

We are not accepting everything here but this has been a hell of a long process that has gone step by step. This is a major step forward in recognising that everything we have been saying is true and needs to be dealt with. It is a step towards dealing with the issue. The solutions are there to be found but they are not in the review at the moment. There are recommendations on finding solutions. We have stated that because it gives us an insight and entrée into having some control over what is done. When the RUS was first promoted, we were supposed to be consulted. We consulted and Mr. O'Connell was involved in consulting at that stage. We said it was not fit for purpose and would not work but nobody listened to us. The consultation process was just a box-ticking exercise. This report promotes a different approach whereby the forest service will have to work in co-operation with the people who will have to implement what happens on the ground.

Senator Victor Boyhan

Does Mr. White have confidence that this will happen?

Mr. Simon White

I cannot say I am confident because we have seen no sign. We met the Minister outside and he asked if the Minister of State, Senator Hackett, has been in touch with us. She has not been in touch with us. This report recommends that we be part of the process. The Minister should come to us. We must be part of the solution and we have recommendations on different ways of going about this.

Senator Victor Boyhan

The LTWO believes a lot more could be built into these recommendations that would give it greater comfort.

Mr. Simon White

I totally agree with the Senator.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I want to push on. Everything went into planting ash. It was being planted for profit. Mr. White's business is an enterprise and a mechanism for active land use. Clearly, that has not happened so there are substantial losses to Mr. White. Does he get any comfort from the idea of compensation? What kind of redress or compensation might he be eligible for?

Mr. Simon White

This review talks about an ex gratia payment. The report states that there has been a complete freeze in action from 2018 to 2023 when nothing was done. What happened in that time? Five years ago, an awful lot of the forests were healthy. It was made illegal for us to salvage anything we had and that is where people lost a fortune. In the time that no action was taken the losses mounted up. The trees that are there now are diseased. There are railway lines going through my farm and 108 trees had to be cut. I thought they would be valuable as firewood but we now find that the calorific value of the timber is low. The timber is rotten and falls apart in your fingers. It is gone and that was an asset that we were prevented from salvaging. That is what is wrong and it needs to be addressed straight away. That asset would have provided money that landowners could have reinvested in replanting and doing things themselves. They do not have that money now; it is gone.

Senator Victor Boyhan

We all agree that the ash task force needs to be established. Has Mr. White heard anything about that? He told us the Minister asked him whether the LTWO had heard from the Minister of State, Senator Hackett, and that he confirmed to the Minister that it had not.

Has Mr. White had any communication through his organisation in relation to the task force and when it will be established?

Mr. Simon White

No and I am vice chairman of the IFA forestry committee also. We have not heard anything about it, we have not been consulted. It is extraordinary that everybody in the private forestry representation have recommended this and they are all still waiting for it for this length of time. Where is the urgency? It seems that they are sitting on their hands, and this needs to be dealt with. If we are to wait, the way the forestry service has dealt with things, we will be waiting a long time. That is why there needs to be a cultural change in the direction of the forestry service.

Senator Victor Boyhan

Mr. White is a member of the IFA committee on forestry. Does he chair the committee?

Mr. Simon White

I am vice chair. I am not representing the IFA here today.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I know that but is it the IFA's view that the recommendations are to be welcomed?

Mr. Simon White

Yes, it is the first time that it has been officially recognised. Up to now, this committee has recognised it, but nobody has worked off it.

Senator Victor Boyhan

To be clear, Mr. White's understanding is that the IFA is also welcoming what I describe as "pie in the sky."

Mr. Simon White

I can understand why the Senator would consider it pie in the sky. From my position, I could also consider it pie in the sky, but I have to look for something positive.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I understand that.

Mr. Simon White

I have to see that we want to be part of the solution and we want the chance to make that happen.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Paul Daly)

Mr. White should not answer on behalf of the IFA if he is not mandated to represent it here this evening.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I appreciate that.

Mr. Simon White

I am not mandated, I just happen to be on the committee so I know how the members feel. I understand the Senator's negativity. My God, I felt it too when I first read the report.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I want to clarify something regarding the IFA. I have already checked the Department journal and on Google. It is my understanding the IFA has also done it. I am happy coming to know that that is my understanding too so I am not relying on Mr. White's evidence, but I thank him for sharing it.

To wrap up, I do not want to be negative but I want to be honest and frank. I do not want to be back here in six months saying it is all a mess. I am not going to welcome this. It would not be the right or responsible thing for me to come in here, clap everyone on the back and say it is wonderful, because it is not. It is a major letdown, a major disappointment. It is not an adequate response but I am happy to work with people on it. If professionals in the sector and investors are happy to work with this, I wish them the best of luck and I will do everything I possibly can in this committee to support them. We are a long way off satisfaction and that is disappointing. We could have got a better deal had we pressed harder on the Minister and the Government in relation to the ash dieback.

Mr. Simon White

I would say to the Senator and members of the committee that there is a responsibility on them to put pressure. The committee can put pressure on the Minister and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. The committee feels exactly the same as we do on the matter and so has a responsibility to make it happen. The committee had its report and recommendations, and it did not happen. The committee has to help us. That is why we are here, to look for help to make this happen and we thank the committee.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I happy to work with Mr. White. In fairness to the committee, this has very much been a focus. Forestry has taken up a lot of time in the committee and the Chairman and all the members have really pushed for it. I share Mr. White's concerns. I am willing to help and support but I want to bring a dose of realism into this debate. I thank Mr. White for his engagement.

Mrs. Maura Duggan

I might just say something about the report. The report is positive because it officially recognises the difficulties within the Department, the difficulties with the RUS and acknowledges things we have been saying for a very long time, notwithstanding the aspirational recommendations the Senator pointed out.

Mr. John O'Connell

If a farmer had a field full cattle dead from foot and mouth, would he have to apply for a licence to remove them? The same thing applies to ash dieback. We have trees standing that are a liability. We are responsible for any damage. If a tree falls on a neighbour or on somebody visiting our woodland, or on people coming in for wintertime shooting, it is our responsibility. Yet the Minister does not allow us to remove these dangerous trees. We are anxious to remove them in order that we can replant and continue on the path we set out on 30 years ago. This is in support of the Government's need to attain 18% forestation, which is so necessary for climate action. We are being treated in an abominable way. For instance, with the effects of ash dieback, we have lost 125 ha of carbon sequestration over the past five years and that is not acceptable.

The Minister can sign off on the Gresham House and Coillte land deal but he will not allow us to remove our trees without applying for a felling licence. This could take six months, a year, two or three years and the trees are a liability. We have our neighbours to consider. Our trees can fall over onto our neighbour's property, perhaps causing injury and we are between a rock and a hard place. The Minister should sign off tonight on allowing us to take out our dying ash trees.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I thank the witnesses for appearing before the committee; we are fairly familiar with them.

This is a long saga and the witnesses have ploughed the furrow for many a day. On the previous RUS scheme, am I right in saying 230 or 240 farmers went into it? How many farmers in total are involved in the ash dieback issue?

Mr. Simon White

A total of 6,500.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Then, the number in the RUS is basically peanuts.

Mr. Simon White

Yes. There was minimal uptake because it was never attractive. It was set up to do the wrong things.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I concur. An important point needs to be added to these findings. Someone is going to be killed on some public road very shortly.

Mr. Simon White

I do not disagree.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

The Ministers will be responsible for not moving on this. Be it via county councils, the single farm payment or some other system, funding should be provided for any ash trees along a road to be cut down. This should have happened already because someone, somewhere is going to be injured or killed. We see what happens during storms. The other day I saw a branch of an ash tree snap suddenly. It completely blocked the road. If someone had been walking or driving, there could have been serious consequences. The State has an obligation to protect its citizens from these kinds of hazards. We know about this. It is not something we do not know about.

Recommendations are all well and good and I see where they are talking about working with the witnesses and bringing them on board. However, having listened to the witnesses I am not so sure. If, while going upstairs, the Minister of State asks the witness had she been in touch, that is not a good sign. That is not the spirit of partnership when a report has been out for five weeks.

I will call it straight. We are dealing with one of the most incompetent Departments I ever saw while a member of the committee. We have our hair pulled out between ash dieback, planting and felling over the past three or four years. How many meeting has the committee had on these issues? We do not have meetings over and over again if something has been sorted. We have so much stuff to go through that we try to move on from one problem to the next. We had to continuously go back to the section on forestry.

Our national targets since 2016 have been less than 50% of what they should be. Over the past four years, we will have hit one year's targets in four years. That is a fact. In good faith, the likes of the witnesses decided to plant their land when it was not a cool thing to do at the time. To be blunt about it, it would be the last thing I would do because fairly good quality land is required to grow ash trees.

Incompetence in the Department is what led to ash dieback in this country because trees were imported. The dogs on the street know this. In good faith, the witnesses went into this and they have been left high and dry in recent years. The report is lovely to read. It is lovely to read that equity is needed for ash plantation owners along with a new partnership arrangement involving landowners in a designated task force. How long will all this go on? Will the witnesses be here again next year telling us a task force was announced the other day. This seems to be going on and on. The witnesses need a decision to be made and in the first instance, they need to be brought in to go through what really works.

At one stage people were phoning me to tell me they had to get planning permission to remove trees. We need a planning waiver for cutting the trees and getting the sites cleared. It is as simple as that. As Mr. White has rightly pointed out, they are turning into dust. They are breaking up into bits. They might be all right if somebody had a wood chipper to put them through to make a bit of bedding. This is what a lot of them are only good for. There are also roots and so on that have to be dealt with.

Support is required to leave the land bare. If people want to go into a different type of timber, they need to get the new grant. This is the only way forward. It is not complicated to decide how to do this. The Department was long enough going over and back to the EU about the depth of peat and the 30 cm and 50 cm. I cannot understand how under state aid rules we could not have got this across the line also. It should be across the line. It is a straight and simple case where people did something in good faith but the trees went wrong and the State acknowledges this. It introduced a scheme which was not acceptable. The proof is in the pudding with regard to the number of people who have taken it.

While it is lovely that the witnesses can come here and state this or that can be done and we will write a letter to the Minister, to be blunt about it it will take fierce political pressure to drive this on. The Department has sat on this for a good number of years. Mr. White said it has been going on since 2017 or 2018. That is five years ago. It needs a decision. We know what is needed. Everyone knows the pill that will solve this and the medicine that will sort it. It is about putting together a budget. In the estimation of Mr. White, what would be the budget required to remove it?

There should be waivers for planning permission for felling. It is not the case that when people fell them they will go to a mill. At best they will be firewood and they will not be good firewood. Woodchip could be made of them but then it is game over. That costs money. What would be the preference of the witnesses? Would it be to get a new 20-year scheme for farmers such as the forestry scheme? What would be their preference to sow? Would their preference be to get out of forestry altogether? Among the members and people involved in Limerick Tipperary Woodland Owners, what is the general thought?

Mr. Simon White

Deputy Fitzmaurice has asked a lot of questions. I will try to go through some of them and I will take the last one first. Our members comprise many types of people. There are people with small plantations, big plantations, young plantations and old plantations. Each one is different. Our problem is that we do not have access to the official data but it is all there in the Department's section on forestry. It has access to all of this. If it co-operated with us we could come up with solutions with it. We have to have access to these data also. For years, the Department did not even share these data with the likes of Teagasc. The advisory body that should have been advising people was not able to do so. It was isolated.

Deputy Fitzmaurice asked what type of scheme we want. We need a new scheme dedicated to dealing with the ash dieback problem. The RUS is a reconstitution and underplanting scheme. Underplanting is not in action now; it is gone. The name of the scheme does not even mean anything. We need a dedicated scheme. We need money put aside to deal with it. We need actions to deal with it. We need machinery. We have lost a great deal of capacity. I find it fascinating that when we were last before the committee, we were speaking about 12,000 jobs in forestry. Now the Minister is speaking about 8,000 jobs in forestry. Where did those 4,000 jobs go? We know. Contractors are not there and forestry workers are not there. There is no capacity. The machines are gone. Even to do the job that needs to be done we will have to have investment in machinery and in personnel to do it on the ground.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

If the bike starts freewheeling on a good scheme and 6,000 people get involved in it, the people with the machinery will react to the business. Getting it going is about the quality of the scheme.

Mr. Simon White

The Deputy is dead right but the quality and planning need to be done with targets. It will take time to do it. It will have to be done in co-operation. The Deputy said he is worried about roadside trees. Forgive me but I must say that dealing with roadside trees is not within the remit of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It is the domain of the National Roads Authority. The money will come from central government and, of course, all Ministers have a say in this but it is not a forestry issue. We are dealing with our ash plantations, which are a danger-----

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Sorry, but dealing with people getting killed on the roads unnecessarily is every Department's business.

Mr. Simon White

It is every Department's business but it is not going to be the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine-----

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Agreed.

Mr. Simon White

-----who will deal with it. It has to come from local government.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

But it can be administered-----

Mr. Simon White

That budget will not come from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It has to come from central funds through local government because it will have to be dealt with locally. I drive local roads and because I know about ash dieback, I am terrified in a storm. I look at every tree. I understand that people are dying. People have died in forests cutting their own trees. We understand this. We are desperately aware of the dangers. We keep speaking about health and safety issues. We cannot cut our own trees with our chainsaws. In the past month, 108 trees on my land were cut to put in a railway and it had to be done with big machines which had shears. Even then, some of the trees were disintegrating when they were grabbed and people 100 ft away were being hit. It is dangerous and people will die. We keep saying this. We have to prevent this from happening. Farmers do not have the resources. I have 40 roadside ash trees that I will have to take down. I am scratching my head wondering how I am supposed to do it. I am not allowed to do it with a chainsaw.

I might injure myself or someone working with me. We need huge investment tying into that. That needs to be done immediately but we need to do our forests and plantations. We need to get this land back into production. There are people on their uppers. I have forgotten one or two of the Deputy's questions because there were so many.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

What is the ideal scheme? Does Mr. White have any clue about what budget would be required?

Mr. Simon White

The scheme will entail getting consultants to measure what is needed because we do not have the data. We know that 90% of the ash plantations are under 3 ha. That means 10% are not. We know farmers with 100 acres of ash. I have 20 acres of ash. There are people in all sorts of difficult situations but it is not rocket science to measure it. We know that a plantation that is 25 years old would have about €6,000 worth of trees standing per acre if they were healthy. All you need to do is measure the age of them. It is not hard to come up with the figure. I estimate the cost of a scheme to be between €400 million and €1 billion.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Between €400 million and €1 billion.

Mr. Simon White

It would cost between €400 million and €1 billion to deal with it, if people were to be fully compensated. I dare say we will not be, but something has to be done to help people to do it. People who have lost everything cannot be expected to pay for it.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

That figure sounds like a lot. When we were told there would be about €1.3 billion for forestry between 2023 and 2027 we said that was great money. Senator Paul Daly was with us when we went to the European Commission. We quizzed officials there and €1 billion of that figure is spread over 20 years. It is giving a bit every year. The bark is worse than the bite.

Mr. Simon White

How many millions did the public service give back last year? I do not know but it was a healthy amount. The Departments are not spending it. It is easy to allocate money to forestry but if schemes are brought in that are not going to work because people do not take them up, the money will go back. The Deputy alluded to the last point I want to make, which was on why we think this is going to happen. We are in an election year. Rural Ireland is well aware of what is happening. People are disgusted with the history of this issue. If the parties involved in Government do not wake up, they will pay for it in the ballot. That is sad but they can do something about it. If they take action now and are seen to be responding responsibly and helping people, they will gain the benefit. For far too long, they have left it up to incompetents and nothing has happened.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Mr. White spoke about how this had been going on since 2018. There was an election in 2020 but there was no Rolls Royce scheme brought in for the farmers in March 2020. This could have been sorted. I fear the Department involved will make things complicated. I hope it will move on the issue. We will do our piece but it is like pushing up a hill, as Senator Daly and everyone else will agree. The Department has been before this committee so many times it is embarrassing. Forestry in Ireland is embarrassing.

Mr. Simon White

It is.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

It is even an embarrassment to talk about it, and then the Department brings out a new scheme. When we look at what farmers have gone through over the past six to eight years, how can I go to farmers and give them confidence? Everything is about confidence, whatever you do in life. Whether you are at cattle, dairy, drystock, sheep or trees, it is about confidence in the market and in what you are doing. How could anyone have confidence at the moment? I hope I am proved wrong but I do not even think farmers will look at the figures from the launch of the new forestry programme. They are sick of what is going on. It will all go back to one big conglomerate, namely, the main forestry system in Ireland, because it will get state aid.

Mr. Simon White

I understand the Deputy's position, and I sympathise and empathise. We have been through it. We talk consistently about how what we are doing is pushing elephants uphill, and the elephants are sitting down. We are fed up with it but it is our job to do it. We have to do it on behalf of our members who plead with us every day of the week. They come to us asking what to do and how to help. We are trying to do our best. The pressure is building. The general public is much more aware now because of our campaigns and the help of the committee. People understand what is happening. There has to be a change. I spoke about the work group in the Department. There has to be a cultural change in the Department. I recognise it is and has been in a mess. There are good personnel in the Department but there has to be a change in personnel. We have seen some change and there is always hope with new people coming in. When Mr. Savage takes over as assistant secretary, the first thing I will try to do is get a meeting with him. If a direction is given from the top that the job must be done, then it can be done. It also has to be done politically and that direction has to come from the politicians. The Ministers are the ones who matter.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

When does Mr. White think this task force will take place?

Mr. Simon White

I thought it should have been set up by now. I am worried the task force is being set up without the people who are meeting on it.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Has Mr. White's group or farmer organisations had any communication? Is it fair to say this has been out for about five weeks?

Mr. Simon White

Yes.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Has there been any communication to say, hey presto, a task force is being set up on 1 December or 1 January? Has anyone been in contact to give any inkling?

Mr. Simon White

No. That is why I am appealing to this committee. We are delighted to be here to ask where the emergency response is. This is a national emergency. The Department needs to act. If it is going to take on the recommendations, it needs to move and we need to be involved. We are waiting and ready to help. We have a huge amount of experience but confidence is fast disappearing. The timeframe to deal with this is tiny. If it is not dealt with now, forestry in Ireland is finished as far as we are concerned. We do not want it to be finished and it does not need to be finished. We are all willing to do this but they continue the way they are going, this Minister and Government will go down in history as the Government that took down Irish forestry.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I am not being smart but I think that is already the case. From the data Mr. White has, what is the general train of thought? Will farmers replant or would they rather make their plantations into a clean field again?

Mr. Simon White

We had our conference in March. A large number of people, through frustration, said they just want out of forestry. They just want to pull the trees out of the ground and put their land back to other uses. We cannot advocate that as a representative group because that is illegal. We would prefer to see the compulsion to replant removed. We think it is counterproductive to forestry. Once an area is planted as forestry, more than likely the most efficient thing to do when the trees are cut down is to replant because there are roots and suchlike. There are, however, cases where people have been so frustrated they just want out, so the picture is mixed. Few people want to go ahead but a lot of pioneers went into forestry. They want to create new habitats, sequester carbon and do their bit. In farming we know that. Farmers are the custodians of the country. They are trying to pass it on to the next generations. They do not want to pass a mess on to the next generation.

Ireland's countryside is a product of our work and what we in farming do. Our tourists come, look and see this. Other people criticise conifers and such like. In my youth, I lived in Dublin. To me, fun, heaven even, was to go out to the Dublin and Wicklow mountains orienteering through those wonderful forests. Yet every day we hear people decrying them. These forests have so much to offer. They sequester so much carbon and are producing timber and habitats. People need to go out into them and see what they are really like. These are the forests producing something. Our broadleaf forests are wonderful as well, but we do not just have to have those types of forests and get rid of conifers. We need a different mindset. We have a very narrow mindset running our forestry now, and it must stop. Other people who have a different mindset must speak up. They must get in there, make demands and ensure that forestry is given its place-----

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Would it not be contended that that is-----

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Paul Daly)

I am sorry Deputy, but we have gone way over time. I was lenient when we had no one else, but we have other members who wish to contribute now.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

This is my last question. Would Mr. White not contend that what he spoke of is coming from Europe? We were there, and all they were talking about was broadleaf forests. They did not want to hear at all about conifers. This is being quite frank about it. There seems to be a belief that we are all just going to be walking around looking at broadleaf trees every day of the week and that is it.

Mr. Simon White

I know, but our situation here is that we have a country that grows spruce trees faster than any other. If we are talking about broadleaf trees, it is impossible to grow them in vast areas of Ireland, such as halfway up a mountain, for example.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Right.

Mr. Simon White

The Minister keeps talking about having the right tree in the right place. Well, sticking broadleaf trees into a conifer forest halfway up a mountain is not having the right tree in the right place, as far as I am concerned.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

No, of course not.

Mr. Simon White

It just makes it less viable. Those trees are not going to survive. It is ridiculous to put all birch trees up there. This is coming from our perspective of dealing with this context. This is our knowledge. If we want to do this type of endeavour, then we need to do it properly. This is not to say, however, that broadleaf trees do not have a big part to play as well. I am sorry for going on.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I thank Mr. White.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Paul Daly)

It was a very informative half hour. I call Deputy Nolan.

Deputy Carol Nolan

I thank the witnesses for their submission. It should not have taken this long to see a report in this regard. This issue has dragged on and on, and I am sure it is very frustrating for the members of the organisation to be here for a fourth time. I commend the Cathaoirleach of this committee, Deputy Cahill, who has allocated a great deal of time to forestry. We need to work cross-party in a constructive manner to try to address this issue once and for all. Would it be possible to have a cross-party briefing, or meeting, with the Minister with responsibility in this area? I say this because this situation just cannot go on. It is frustrating and disappointing to see that the Minister, the Minister of State and the Department have not reached out to the people affected. Mention has been made of a task force. Yet approximately five weeks after the report recommended that, no one has been in contact, as I understand it, with the group. This is worrying, and I ask that a cross-party meeting or briefing be organised with the Minister or Minister of State. This committee works well together and there is consensus on these issues. This is to be welcomed.

I am also very concerned. I have many constituents affected directly by this problem and who are suffering major financial losses. We hear so much talk about biodiversity and protecting it and ecosystems. What about the damage, however, being done to habitats and ecosystems with this problem of ash dieback? Where is the concern in this regard? I feel there should be much more concern and certainly much more urgency. We must see assistance given to the 6,000 people affected by this issue. There must be some form of a straightforward and common-sense approach in terms of the removal of the trees affected by ash dieback. It is posing a danger. Obviously, these ash trees are rotting away. They must be removed, and there must be a practical, common-sense solution found to this issue once and for all. I call for this to be done today.

I fully support and sympathise with the people affected. I understand how frustrated they must be. There must be urgency to this matter. It has dragged on and on. Urgency must also be given to providing compensation to the affected people to restore the confidence in our forestry sector that has been badly shaken. This is a sector that once supported 10,000 jobs. I understand this figure has now dropped to 8,000 people employed in the sector. Again, this is worrying and poses questions. It shows that damage is being done. There must be a sense of urgency regarding this matter. I support a proposal to meet the Minister. He has been here several times but such a meeting must happen again. We need to see a sense of urgency in dealing with this issue.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Paul Daly)

I thank Deputy Nolan. I do not know if there was a question in there for the witnesses.

Deputy Carol Nolan

Those were more comments than questions.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Paul Daly)

Regarding the Deputy's request concerning a meeting with the Minister, as a committee we will probably discuss this in a private session.

Deputy Carol Nolan

I thank the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach and I appreciate it.

Mr. John O'Connell

The simple fact is that we need action now, today, and not tomorrow or next week. We have been waiting for five years. This is our fourth time appearing before this committee, and I hope it is our last time. It is lovely to come up here, but it is wasting our time-----

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Paul Daly)

We are not that bad.

Mr. John O'Connell

We need action now. We have a Minister who lacks leadership and passion about something that is so important to this country. We are at 11% with our afforestation rate and probably down to 10% now with the loss of ash trees. We are committed to having an afforestation rate of 18% by 2030. Let us imagine when that time comes. Europe will not think twice about imposing a massive penalty on us. This seems to be okay and the Minister appears to be prepared to pay it. We are, though, suffering as a result.

We were ready to take out our trees at the beginning of the summer when the weather was dry. It is now raining and the terrain is impossible to work on. Trees are dying and there is a threat to all of us who work in the area, but we are not allowed to remove the timber. We must apply for a licence, and this takes some time. I am not applying for a licence because it could take me years to get one. We got our permission to plant 30 years ago. Having done research and based on the promotion undertaken by the then Government, we went ahead with this as being a blue-chip investment and an endeavour that would ensure we had something to allow us to provide for ourselves in retirement and something to pass on to our children. Now, there is nothing, only a dead plantation. We are left high and dry. We do not have the money to reinvest and put good money in after bad. I know we took the premiums, but much of that money came from Europe at the time.

There is a lack of passion and leadership here. There is talk about the environment. The Minister talks about wetting bogland. If we were to fly over the centre of Ireland, though, we would see it is all exposed bogland. There is no sphagnum moss there to sequester carbon, and it is being released all the time from that open bogland. It is absolute nonsense.

Mrs. Maura Duggan

I am absolutely mystified by the resistance of the Minister and Department to respond to the problem with the ash dieback disease. In a sense, we are almost like the canary in the coalmine, in that we are the vanguard. We are the first in the forestry sector to be seriously affected by disease. The poor response, really the lack of a response, to our circumstances should be extremely worrying for anyone thinking about going into farming. I think the Minister and the Minister of State may not fully appreciate the impact the failure to address ash dieback will have on confidence.

Historically, Dutch Elm disease came in and, unbelievably, eliminated all the trees. Then came this ash dieback disease. We look around and it is impossible to imagine that every ash tree in the country, more or less, is going to be dead. We have been meeting about this issue for years and our concerns have been ignored. We are now in a situation where we are looking at a new afforestation programme. There is the noise about the bark beetle, which is a real risk to the remaining spruce trees here and, again, the Department is blind to the potential risks and ignoring them, thinking that monitoring is some kind of form of prevention. I refer to monitoring bark on trees coming in from Scotland, the country that has this affliction.

How, then, can anybody think about planting trees in future when they look at us and see what is happening with ash dieback and the negligence and ill-treatment we have suffered? Deputy Fitzmaurice wondered what was going to happen now.

As to our position, we are not going away. We are extremely frustrated by the lack of action but we are not giving up on this campaign. Anybody I know who has ash trees or who asks me whether they should plant, I will definitely be saying "No". I will be telling them that the Department will make them responsible, tie their hands so they are unable to do anything about it, and it will then be their fault and their problem. That has actually been written down. That is part of the new afforestation scheme and is now part of ours. I am mystified as to why the Department does not recognise the writing on the wall for any future forestry programmes.

Deputy Fitzmaurice asked what we would like to plant if we were to replant. I will speak about my own circumstances. I planted spruce and ash. In my naivety at the time, I did not realise that ash was such a valuable crop but my forester told me my land was not good enough for oak, so I have 1 acre of oak and the rest is ash. My ash trees are dead but I planted them as a commercial crop. I cannot imagine what I will plant, except for spruce, that will return my land to some sort of commercial use. It was deemed that ash was the only hardwood that would grow on the land, so it is useful for me to go planting oak because it would not be the right tree in the right place. For many of us, spruce will be what we might consider replanting in the future but everybody is different. As Mr. White said, for some people this may mean a return to farmland depending on their circumstances. What can be grown on land that has been destroyed by ash is a question. We will not be giving up this campaign. If we have to, we will come back again. Our views will be heard. I urge the Minister to take heed of us and to think forward to the consequences for future afforestation by him ignoring us. That is all I have to say.

Deputy Michael McNamara

I heard the very beginning of Mr. White's presentation before the vote was called. I did not hear anything after that until I came back in again so I apologise if I am asking questions to which the witnesses have already providing the answer. I am one of four Deputies who represents County Clare. Obviously, Clare has one of the biggest ash plantations in the country and so is one of the counties and constituencies most affected. I note Mr. White's lack of confidence in the Minister. It is unfortunate that so much political capital is being stoked on an afforestation scheme when the reality belies this given what is happening. It is illegal to cut down a forest which is alive and obviously it is always a condition of cutting it down that it be replanted. Is it illegal to cut down a forest if it is dead?

Mr. Simon White

That is a debatable question. Personally, I do not feel it is illegal to cut down dead trees except the issue is what you will cut them down with? We are not allowed cut them now because they are deemed dangerous. I had to cut them down with chainsaws, so you would have to go to the expense of cutting them down with big expensive machinery. It will cost a lot of money to do it. As regards the legalities of it, that is one of the problems that is there. Again, it is not so much the legality of cutting down the trees, it is that you have to replant and the question is how long it will be before the land can be used. We have people who have cut down trees and they are under terrible pressure to replant. Not necessarily in cases of ash dieback but some people have tried to put land back to grass and they then have been fined until such time as they replant. It is a major issue but it is not the issue that worries us. What we say is that we do not need a licence to cut down a tree because logically that does not make sense. All we need is permission from the State. There is a huge list of statutory instruments that have been passed by this Minister, on forestry and everything, to deal with the new forestry programme. It is impossible to understand them. I am an environmental scientist but I am not an environmental lawyer and quite honestly I do not understand them. There is a huge number of them allowing all the things the Department wants, such as Gresham House being able to buy this; Coillte being able to get grants. All those things can be done. Why can the Department not do something simple which allows us to go out and cut down these dangerous trees and get on with getting this land back into production? We asked for that back in the spring and the Minister flat out told us "No". He said it would be reviewed. We have got the review. We needed it. All the Department has to do is act and take decisions. There is a total lack of leadership and decision-making. We cannot make decisions on our own. We have been paralysed for years by this. We just want to work and to get the job done. The Department has to make the decisions. The job of the committee members is to put pressure on the Department and the Ministers to make those decisions and to govern. They are members of Government; they are in charge. The committee needs to get them to do it. If they will not do it, they will not be in Government the next time around.

Deputy Michael McNamara

I wish it was as easy as that to get the Government to move on any sector, forestry or otherwise, on which I have pressed it.

The other question relates to this new scheme of planting small areas. I appreciate it is a different matter but Mr. White spoke about it being difficult to determine what is lawful and what is not. There is this idea that areas can be planted but it is not at all clear to me what areas can be planted without carrying out an appropriate assessment or screening. The fact that it is unclear to me does not matter massively, but what is more important is that it is unclear to foresters in my constituency and to forestry experts. Even for this 1 ha scheme that both Ministers------

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Paul Daly)

I do not think that is related to ash dieback.

Deputy Michael McNamara

It is not, no.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Paul Daly)

This group is primarily dealing with ash dieback and that is the topic of conversation for the meeting. I would not expect the witnesses to be able to answer that question or to have an obligation to answer it.

Mr. Simon White

If the Cathaoirleach will forgive me, there is a point one can make on that. There are terms and conditions with all the new schemes. When we all signed up to forestry, we did not sign a contract. We signed a document agreeing to abide by the terms of the day. That is an open-ended document. From our experience to date, I would not do it again because it means that the terms and conditions can change. In 2022, the Department allowed the EU to bring in a whole new concept of forestry. It is no longer considered a crop. That is gone. Therefore, you could be compensated for plants and animals up to then. As trees are not considered a crop, something else has happened. The Department has not designated what it is but it is not compensable. That is the sort of ridiculous thing that is going on. We know the Department changed all the terms and conditions. If we do something wrong, we get penalised straight away for not abiding by the conditions but the Department can change the conditions the whole time and then we get affected again. If you had a contract and knew the terms and conditions, then if these are changed later and we suffer because of it, we have to be compensated. I refer to the terms and conditions in the new forestry schemes. People do not understand now that the responsibility for disease is on the landowner. Before it was always the responsibility of the Department for forestry to protect our estate in trees. It failed to do that but now it has switched the responsibility and people do not understand. If you plant your 1 ha and it seems fine, if it gets a disease and in five years' time, you cannot deal with the disease, the Department can claw back all the premiums and grants that you got. People do not understand that because they do not see the terms and conditions. You have to look up the forestry Act and all the statutory instruments. If you ask a lawyer what your position is, they will not know. It is not clear. People are not being told the full truth and they are being sold a pup. All we can say to people is that they should open their eyes, look at what they are signing up to, and really believe that if they plant, they plant forever. They are doing it for their children and their children's children. It might look fine for them for five years but they have basically sold their land to the Department and to the State because they will have no control over it again after the five or ten years for which they get premiums, if they do that.

What are they going to do with that? I am asking people to be aware. They can do this and do it right. If they want to plant, they should not plant for a grant but plant to have a habitat, a forest or income to do something for the future and for the next generations. They should not plant for a grant.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Paul Daly)

I call Deputy Danny Healy-Rae.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

I welcome the witnesses. I have been at various committee meetings previous to this, and it is tough to see them having to come back here with their issues still not resolved. As they said, confidence in the forestry sector and planting trees and so on is totally lost because we cannot believe anything from the Government any more, especially the Minister of State, who, as I have said, does not want a spruce tree to be planted and does not want a tree to be cut down. I do not know what the Minister of State's purpose is at all because she is not helping people. They have been wiped out. I come from a small hurling parish, and we appreciate the clash of the ash as much as Clare people do. Our little club was a hurling club and only ever played football when it got too dark to see the sliotar. We really love the ash, and when we cut down a tree there was a grand fire out of what was left of it and we derived pleasure from that as well as being heated.

It is sad to think the people affected are not being compensated for this disease, which the Department has been blamed for bringing in from abroad. The issue has gone on for so long, and I am 100% in support of the witnesses' cause. I was watching them earlier but had to go up and down for votes and had speaking time and so on. It is terrible to think that this is happening to this sector of our own people, who invested and set aside their land. I hear what Mr. White says about being very careful. There is a lot of talk about this planting of a hectare now and that it is the thing to do. I would say the same thing Mr. White said: people should plant it if they want to do so, but they should not plant with the expectation that they will get any recognition from the Government by way of grants or whatever else. As Mr. White said, if something happens, if the people do something, the Department will look to claw the money back and claim that it is not their land any more but the Department's land. That is what people must realise now when they plant. They do not own the place and, as Mr. White said, it is sold to the Department or the Department is in charge of it then and they cannot do what they want to do with it any more, and that is not right.

The witnesses can rest assured that I will do as much as any other elected representative to help the people affected to get fair play. If the witnesses have to come in again, it will be regrettable. I know that they are all busy and have other things to do and that it is an ordeal to come in here, but we appreciate their coming in and fighting for what they believe in. That is what we are here for as well, to stand up for them and to make the case. We will continue to do that because right is on their side. They deserve to be seen after, and I will do my best like the rest of the people. Thank you, a Chathaoirligh, for allowing me in.

Mr. Simon White

I thank Deputy Healy-Rae. I do not want this meeting to end in negativity. We, who could be very negative, want to be positive. We want to go forward. We are actually very committed to forestry if it is done properly. It has huge benefits to this nation. It is bemusing to us to find what is happening because there is so much potential out there. We need it for the environment. Do people realise that we are signed up to planting 500,000 ha to get up to 18% of this country under trees, which is a low percentage for Europe, by 2030? That is only down the road. The Minister of State and others have put so much effort into the advertising and promotion of this. If we were to get 10,000 ha planted under that one-hectare scheme, it would be all we would get done. It is ludicrous. We need to promote real forestry and getting trees into the ground, which are needed. That will happen only when the legacy issues are dealt with, and the major legacy issue is ash dieback. It would be a small price to pay because in the end we will not be able to make our climate change targets and suchlike, and nothing can do that more easily, better and more efficiently than trees. We need them and we are the people who can do it, but there is not an acre of land in this country that needs to be planted that is not in the hands of private owners at the moment. Coillte does not own any more land. We own the land. People have to be enticed to plant. It has to be made worth their while and it has to be done properly. It has to be managed properly. There has been a hell of a lack of that leadership, and that needs to be addressed. It can be done. The people are willing to do it. Let us get together and get it done.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Paul Daly)

There are no further contributors. From my point of view, having heard the deliberations all evening, I go back to the outset, when I welcomed the witnesses' welcoming of the review. On your final contribution, Mr. White, not to finish on a negative note, it was a long, hard journey to get here, a journey that should never have to have been made. The LTWO was given a torrid time during all that intervening time but did welcome the review, and I welcome the fact that it welcomed the review.

I am very taken aback, however, by what you said, Mr. White, about your conversation with the Minister of State when you met and that you have not heard anything since. The review states that the people affected are to have an active input going forward. From the committee's point of view, at our next private meeting I will brief the Chair beforehand. Unfortunately, he could not come back; he got detained somewhere else. We will raise that, and the ball is now firmly back at the committee's feet to find out from the Minister of State and put the pressure on her as to why the LTWO has not been met or why the processes that were recommended have not yet started after five weeks. Everywhere in the report it mentions speed and the need for rapid resolution. On that note, I give the witnesses the commitment of the committee. We will also take on board Deputy Nolan's proposal. I think we thought this evening might have been the end of a long journey and a long relationship between the witnesses and the committee, but I think we have more tasks going forward on the back of the deliberations and what the witnesses have told us this evening. As I said, I agree with them that the review was long overdue. I welcome its publication. There is no point in its publication if the recommendations therein are not acted on, and acted on swiftly. I give the witnesses the commitment on behalf of the Chair and on behalf of the committee that we will take that up going forward and try to expedite the recommendations. I thank the witnesses for their contribution and their visit here.

Mr. Simon White

Thank you, a Chathaoirligh. Just tell them we are here and we are willing. We want to be involved. It is recommended we are involved.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Paul Daly)

That has come across loud and clear and has been taken on board.

Mr. Simon White

It does not have to be us. There are other representative bodies. We do not want to do it ourselves but we are willing to do it if nobody else will step up to the plate. There are others capable of doing it.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Paul Daly)

I was taken aback, as I said to you, that you had not even had any correspondence since. We will take that on board, and I thank you again for your contribution today.

The next public meeting of the committee will be on Wednesday, 8 November 2023, at 5.30 p.m., when the agenda will be an examination of education and upskilling in agriculture and concerns for sourcing winter animal feed in the Shannon Callows area.

As there is no further business, the meeting stands adjourned.

The joint committee adjourned at 8.30 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 8 November 2023.