Vol. 525 No. 5
98 Mr. U. Burke asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage Gaeltacht and the Islands the reason a meeting, agreed between Dúchas and the Shannon Callows Negotiation Group, following their meetings of 24 and 26 June 1999, has not taken place at which the terms of reference on the way in which compensation for losses as a result of designation of SPA would have been finalised; and the further reason there has been no contact between the parties since. [25671/00]
My Department, together with the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, has successfully completed negotiations on prescriptions for Burren habitats, blanket bogs, heaths, upland grassland, sand dunes and machair. A number of other habitats, including callows, have yet to be agreed.
Officials of both Departments have met organisations representing the Shannon Callows farmers on numerous occasions over the past few years. I visited the callows and attended a meeting in Banagher on 29 October 1999. At a meeting between the officials and farmers' representatives held in February 2000, agreement in principle was reached on the prescriptions which would be applied to the Shannon Callows and other similar lands. It was also agreed to prepare a number of farm plans on a pilot basis. These plans would apply the prescriptions and indicate the financial implications arising on the sample farms and, therefore, the appropriate compensation in these cases.
It was envisaged a further meeting would take place once the plans were completed at which any necessary refinement of the prescriptions in light of the results could be discussed. Unfortunately, the farmers subsequently refused permission to have the plans prepared on their lands. Officials of my Department met the relevant farm organisations on 2 November 2000 and it was agreed that prescriptions for habitats other than callows should be progressed as rapidly as possible.
It is grossly unfair for the Minister to state that permission for the plans was not available from the participants in the pilot scheme. If it was desired to introduce confusion, the Minister and her officials have succeeded in doing so. She has not said why the meeting arranged and granted following the meeting of 24 June did not take place. The minutes of the meeting of 24 June do not represent truthfully what took place. As a consequence of not holding the agreed meeting, the Minister and her officials have availed of the opportunity to impose criteria for agreement.
Will the Minister indicate clearly why she has not agreed the terms of compensation? The Minister of State was present with me as far back as 1997 in Hayden's Hotel in Ballinasloe where he met the group in question and said that money was not an obstacle.
The Deputy is making a statement.
What has happened to that undertaking since?
I understand the Deputy's concern on this issue. Both the Minister of State and I want to see this matter resolved. I have met this group on more than one occasion. If the farmers' representatives were to agree either to have the pilot farms prepared or to dispense with the need for these as a basis for final agreement on the habitats prescriptions, there could certainly be progress. The purpose of the prescriptions, and this comes down to the question on compensation which I will answer, is that the plans would be used to calculate any income loss arising from the designations of SACs and SPAs and, consequently, the compensation, if any, due.
The reason the Department did not accept the plans prepared by the farmers was that the prescriptions were more severe than those envisaged by my Department and went beyond those necessary to maintain the favourable conservation status of these lands. The plans were, therefore, unacceptable. As I said in my initial reply, officials of my Department then met the relevant farm organisations and it was agreed that, because agreement could not, unfortunately, be reached on this issue, the prescription for other habitats should be progressed as rapidly as possible.
Like the Deputy, we would like to see this matter resolved. The reason for the disagreement is that the farmers' representatives have not been able to agree, for their own reasons, to have the pilot farm plans prepared. If this were done, it would expedite the matter immediately.
Is it fair for the Minister to suggest that the participants withdrew their consent? That is the kernel of the issue. It did not happen. The reason was a failure by departmental officials to give adequate notification prior to visiting one farm identified as a pilot scheme. There was no preparation or notification because of the suddenness of the visit. It is grossly unfair for the Minister's officials to state that the participants withdrew their consent and to use that in a global fashion as has been done.
To rebuild whatever bridges have been damaged, the Minister should immediately instruct her officials to contact all the participants involved and re-establish negotiations so that the matter can be dealt with. They are being left out.
We must proceed to the next question. That concludes Priority Questions.
