Vol. 542 No. 1
5 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources the reason farmers who planted forestry prior to 1991 are being discriminated against in so far as the payment of up-to-date forestry premium is concerned; the number of farmers who are in this category; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23461/01]
The initial forest premium scheme was introduced in application of Council Regulation 797/85 as amended by Council Regulation 1609/89 and called the farmers' premium scheme. The scheme was available to farmers whose annual off-farm income did not exceed £11,000 in any of the three income tax years preceding the year of planting. The scheme included conditions whereby the farmer had to own the land for planting and had to reside within daily commuting distance of the forest plantation. Planting completed by farmers on or after June 1989 was eligible under the scheme. In all, some 1,500 farmers benefited in the period from 1989 to 1993, when the scheme closed. In the case of conifers, the annual rates of premium, payable over a period of 15 years, ranged initially from £50 to £116, depending on land quality and area planted. In the case of broadleaves, the premiums were payable over 20 years and the initial annual rate was £116 per hectare. Some minor improvements to the farmers' premium scheme were introduced in 1992 and in September 1999 I announced increases of 15% in the rates under the scheme. The new rates ranged from £60 to £135 per hectare.
The Government agreed in July last to my proposal to fund, from Exchequer sources, premium increases for those who planted pre-2000.
Additional InformationIn the case of the farmers' premium scheme, the proposals included provision for a further 15% increase. The proposed new rates, ranging from £69 to £156 per hectare, are the maximum rates allowable under the regulations referred to above. The proposals were submitted for approval to the European Commission and a decision is expected shortly. In summary, while I would be happy to bring the rates payable under the farmers' premium scheme in line with the rates applicable to those who planted in later years, I am precluded from doing so by EU regulation.
When the fat is removed from the answer, does it mean that the Government is committed to giving the same level of grant aid to farmers who planted in the period in question? I acknowledge the Minister of State's recent announcement of a top-up for farmers prior to 1999. Would not these farmers – some of whom receive only £40 per acre – be better off under any other scheme? The trees grow, but bring in no income. Is that fair?
When we consider the amount that others who planted at a later stage receive those farmers would not consider it fair. However, farmers signed up to an agreement before 1992 and before 1999. We secured a 30% increase last year. I know the Deputy would consider that old hat, but he asked on a number of occasions at Question Time if we could get an agreement to pay farmers who planted pre-2000. I tried in Europe, but, as the Deputy knows, I failed. I tried again, but again failed. I then came back home and tried the Exchequer. In the first instance it said "No", but had a change of heart following strong representations from the industry and us. I am now awaiting confirmation from Europe. The Deputy is talking about a third group which did not appear on his agenda until now. The farmers of that era will be happy if I get confirmation from Europe as I expect I will in one month's time.
Farmers are not happy.
I was talking about farmers who planted pre-1991.
I know what the Deputy is talking about.
Is the answer "Yes" or "No"?
The farmers of that era will be happy if I get confirmation.
I will be the first to congratulate the Minister of State if this particular group is included. They were forgotten. They should have been included automatically and will have a case in law if they are excluded.
What we are told in Europe – if one is concerned with natural justice, one will agree – is that farmers of that era, and the 1992-2000 era, signed an agreement accepting a level of premium.
The last group did that also.
They did, but we fought hard for that. One of the weaknesses of the two original schemes was that there was no provision for an increase. I am pleased that the deal I negotiated last year has such a provision.
We were right to keep the whip hand on.
