Vol. 535 No. 4
51 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources the reason retrospective forestry payment has not been made to farmers; if the Government has made a decision in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12839/01]
Following discussions with the European Commission, I was pleased in March 2000 to announce significant increases, averaging 30%, in the rates of annual forest premium. For example, in the case of farmers planting broadleaves – oak and beech – in severely handicapped areas the annual premium increased from £265 to £373 per hectare. For farmers planting 20% diverse coni fers, the premium increased from £210 to £308 per hectare.
As I have previously indicated, the application of the increased premiums to pre-2000 planting was an essential element of the case submitted to the European Commission in August 1999. From the beginning, however, the Commission indicated that this aspect would be problematic and the increased rates agreed in March 2000 did not apply to such planting.
My Department made a further detailed submission to the Commission in April 2000 in support of such increases. I vigorously pursued this case at a number of meetings with the Commission in the latter half of last year. The question of applying the increase to those who had planted in the period 1993-99 was the subject of protracted discussions at all levels with the Commission. In spite of cogent arguments, the Commission remained steadfast in its refusal to co-fund the increases.
Careful consideration has been given in the meantime to the question of the Exchequer bearing the full cost of the increases. However, in view of other calls on the Exchequer, it is not possible for the Government to do so in the current year. The matter can be reviewed in the context of the next budget.
I am shattered by the reply. A total of 12,000 forestry farmers were promised they would not suffer any loss if they planted prior to the introduction of the new grant-aid levels. This is the fourth occasion on which I have tabled a question on this issue during marine questions. On the three previous occasions the Minister of State gave an undertaking – and I believe he was genuine – that the Government would pick up the tab. However, that has been knocked on the head today and that is a disgrace.
The Deputy should ask a question.
Does the Minister of State accept that he and the Government have let down 12,000 farmers who believed they would be at no disadvantage in planting when they did? These farmers were led to believe by Ministers and others that the EU Commission or the Government would pick up the tab. The Minister of State assured me in the House one month ago that the Exchequer and not the EU would do so, and I accepted that assurance. The Minister of State also said he would bring to bear all the pressure possible in this regard.
This is a bad day for forestry to which the Minister of State is giving a bad name. We should not do this to such an important industry. On the last occasion I said the Government was playing politics with this issue and I genuinely believe it is doing so. The Minister of State has indicated this matter might be considered next year—
The Deputy should ask a question.
Is the Minister of State saying that, in effect, the Government has refused to make Exchequer funding available? Will he state the position clearly?
On the previous occasion I indicated that the answer was no. I hope I did not mislead the Deputy. I do not wish to go down that road again because the answer is no. I do not want to make too much of this as I do not wish anyone to be under the impression that this will be a simple matter for the next budget. However, it will be considered and reviewed in the context of that budget. The answer today is no. I am disappointed that is the case, but that is how matters stand.
Is the Minister, Deputy Fahey, concerned about this? He is a member of the Cabinet. How much money will the Exchequer save by not paying farmers what they are entitled to in this regard?
We should clear up the issue regarding entitlement. Pre-1999 farmers signed an agreement to the effect that they would accept the money on offer. I sought and obtained a substantial increase this time last year. The advantage of the increases is that they can be reviewed every three years. This was a weakness in the last programme.
The Minister and I believed that there was a case, even though the Commission argued to the contrary. If we had obtained agreement from Government we would have had to go back to the Commission, and God knows what it would have said.
There are other strong supporters. However, in view of the current demands on the Exchequer it was considered today that the answer would be no, but that the matter should be reviewed before the next budget. I am making no promise, but the answer is no. We will go down this road again.
For £4 million—
We have exhausted the time allocated for this question.
