Vol. 511 No. 2
13 Mr. Boylan asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands the reason for the 20% reduction in her Department's estimate in the subheads for the national parks and wildlife service where expenditure is being reduced to £18.5 million for the year 2000. [23710/99]
45 Mrs. B. Moynihan-Cronin asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands the reason for the reduction of 20% in the allocation for the national parks and wildlife service in the 2000 Estimates for her Department; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [23702/99]
I will take Questions Nos. 13 and 45 together.
The estimate of £18.5 million for the year 2000 provided for the national parks and wildlife service, subhead S of my Department's Vote, must be considered in the context of the allocation made for the same subhead in 1999. The 1999 allocation of £23.239 million represented an increase of 98% over the estimated outturn for 1998. This increase was based on the estimated compensation costs arising from the implementation of the habitats directive in Ireland. However the estimated outturn for 1999 is now expected to be in the order of £18.3 million.
The reduction over 1999 in the estimate for subhead S for the year 2000 reflects the best estimate of the compensation costs arising from the implementation of the Habitats Directive. Compensation is payable to landowners where restrictions arising from the designation of special areas of conservation, SACs, result in a loss of income to the landowner. Farmers can obtain compensation either by joining the rural environment protection scheme administered by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development or by claiming directly from my Department for actual losses arising. Compensation costs are particularly difficult to estimate as restrictions on lands and actual losses can vary from landholding to landholding and there can be a significant time lag between agreement on compensation schemes and maximum take up under those schemes.
The Minister set up an independent arbitration board under former Ombudsman, Mr. Michael Mills. How many cases are outstanding and are yet to be determined by that body? Is that what the estimated compensation relates to – outstanding payments?
Regarding the national parks and wildlife service, how is it proposed that trained park and wildlife rangers will suddenly become archaeological wardens when they are not trained for such work? I understand the Minister wants these park rangers to do archaeological work in monitoring archaeological sites. How is it proposed they do that when they have no training in this area?
Both questions asked do not pertain to the original question and if the Deputy wants the information, particularly regarding figures, he should put down the relevant question in order to get an accurate answer. Regarding the habitats directive, the reason money is being put aside in subhead S is that it is estimated for the year 2000 and it reflects the best estimate for the compensation costs of the implementation of the directive. That is why this money has been put aside in that Vote. I am committed to fair and equitable compensation provisions and all due compensation costs will be met.
The question is really about the loss of funding for farmers who really need it: those farmers with special areas of conservation. Is the Minister standing over a further reduction in funds for farmers who will require this compensation in the year 2000? There is a huge reduction in the amount of money available and despite the Minister using the warm words, "the best estimate", it does not seem that her Department will provide the proper funding to those who require compensation when their lands are designated as special areas of conservation. The Minister built up aggravation about these areas when she was in Opposition and she must go some way to meet these people's demands.
I am amused by the Deputy's contribution. He is trying to scaremonger about this matter, but any compensation costs that meet the criteria of either REPS or my Department's scheme will be met. As regards his filibustering on the habitats directive, the Deputy will remember it was discussed in the House long before this Government came to power. On our accession to Government, this Department and the Minister of State and myself took what we believe to be a fair and equitable approach in giving landowners and land users their say through the appeals board and liaison committees. This was a way of factoring in local involvement which was not there heretofore.
Does the figure referred to in the question represent an expanded list of special areas of conservation rather than the reduced list submitted by the Department following my signing of the habitats directive in February 1997? The Minister referred to the appeals process in her last reply. Has she reached a conclusion in relation to the water bodies of lakes such as Corrib and Mask?
Lough Corrib and Lough Mask are within the SAC. I will send further information to the Deputy as I know of his interest in this issue.
Questions are concluded.
I indicated at the beginning of the question.
Unfortunately, the Deputy should have been here sooner. We have concluded questions. As the Deputy knows, Question Time ceases at 3.50 p.m.
A Cheann Comhairle, I was here at the beginning of the question. I do not accept that as an answer.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
