Vol. 516 No. 4
4 Mr. Sheehan asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources if the new forestry grants recently announced by his Department are on par with the proposals submitted by his Department to Brussels in August 1999; and if he has satisfied himself that forestry can compete with other better paying EU schemes for land use. [7897/00]
The increased afforestation grants of approximately 30% which I announced on 6 March are as proposed to the European Commission last year. The increases in premium payments, averaging approximately 32% although not matching, compare very favourably with the proposals submitted. I am satisfied the new rates represent a significant advance for forestry and will help forestry to compete on an equal footing with other land use schemes.
There are a number of other related issues which will improve the competitive position of forestry. These include the definition of farmers, which is being addressed in the context of the rural development plan.
My officials are in discussions with their colleagues in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development to examine ways of complementing forestry and REPS. I am now taking up the case of farmers who had planted in earlier years and will be pursuing adequate premium increases for them.
I am still convinced that forestry cannot compete with other EU schemes for land use. The Minister of State sought a grant payment level of £335 per hectare and settled for £308, which is 12% short of what he proposed to Brussels. Why did he not stick it out for his original proposal of £335 per hectare? Have the increased grants the Minister of State announced been approved by Brussels and has he received that approval in writing?
The answer to the last question is "yes" and I know the Deputy will be pleased to hear that. Regarding the figure of £335 we sought, I recall we were told earlier that £245 was the maximum we would receive. After Christmas, I was asked to accept a figure of £280, but I stuck it out for as long as I could and there were many calls from the Deputy and others in the industry who sought a decision. However, I hung on and obtained a figure of £308 after being advised to take the figure of £280. We obtained a very good deal.
I have advised farmers that whatever deal was done would apply to the current planting season which stretches back to October and November of 1999. Anyone who planted as far back as November 1999 and up to the end of this planting season will benefit from the increases of 33%. If any other industry were to receive that level of increase, I would be interested to hear about it.
I am extremely disappointed that the Minister failed to include farmers who planted under the CAP forestry measures since 1992. Will those people now be left out in the wilderness? It is no good for the Minister of State to say he is making representations to Brussels. Why was it not all included in the one package? I doubt he will make any headway in this matter now. These are the people who pioneered forestry in this country and they are now being left out in the cold.
I am well aware that the Deputy is a gracious person and I hope that, by the time I take questions twice more, which will be in about two months, he will congratulate me for succeeding in this field. I am determined to acquire additional premia for those who planted in 1992. Interestingly, they signed a contract where they deemed themselves to be satisfied with what was offered then. Those who will now receive the grant level of £308 for land which would be put to another use are similar to those who planted from 1992, so I will seek equity across the board. I cannot guarantee it, but I expect that the Deputy, being the gracious person he is, will congratulate me in two months' time.
I wish the Minister of State luck in his endeavours.
I thank the Deputy for that. I know he does.
