Catherine Byrne
Question:91 Deputy Catherine Byrne asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the number of privately owned hectares of forestry in each of the past 20 years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19613/08]
Other Questions.
Afforestation Programme.
The number of privately owned hectares of forestry planted in each of the past 20 years has been set out in tabular format and will be included in the Official Report. It ranges from 2,954 hectares in 1987 to 6,947 hectares last year. I fully acknowledge the contribution made to the forestry sector to date by private landowners and farmers with the vision to adopt forestry as a viable land use option. I am eager to ensure that even greater numbers will continue to do so in the future.
The Government is fully committed to forestry as evidenced by the allocation of €126 million this year to further the national afforestation programme. At present, approximately 15,000 farmers and landowners are enjoying the financial and other benefits brought about by their involvement in the afforestation programme. For example, in March the Department paid out €52 million to private farm foresters in respect of their annual forestry premiums. This represents a significant cash injection into the rural economy.
Since the significant State and EU supported afforestation schemes came into operation in the early 1980s, more than 226,000 hectares of privately owned forest has been established. I am committed to building on this significant achievement and encouraging further private landowner participation in forestry.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
|
Year |
Privately owned hectares |
|
1987 |
2,954 |
|
1988 |
4,596 |
|
1989 |
8,497 |
|
1990 |
9,147 |
|
1991 |
11,292 |
|
1992 |
9,134 |
|
1993 |
9,171 |
|
1994 |
12,837 |
|
1995 |
17,343 |
|
1996 |
16,555 |
|
1997 |
10,583 |
|
1998 |
10,002 |
|
1999 |
11,777 |
|
2000 |
14,231 |
|
2001 |
15,147 |
|
2002 |
14,735 |
|
2003 |
8,969 |
|
2004 |
9,617 |
|
2005 |
10,032 |
|
2006 |
8,012 |
|
2007 |
6,947 |
Although the target is 10,000 hectares per annum, the Minister of State has stated the planting programme has declined in recent years, falling as low as 6,000 hectares last year. While the current planning obligation certainly is deterring farmer planting, I will return to this point in the next question to be taken. The planting threshold of eight hectares is too high. I understand it is clear, from the applications in hand in the forestry service, the present scheme simply is not attractive to farmers in the west of Ireland or in other areas in which farm sizes tend to be smaller. On the other end of the scale——
Does the Deputy have a question?
——the tiered structure makes the forest environment protection scheme, FEPS, less attractive on larger REPS farms. The fact that unenclosed land cannot be planted also is restricting the scheme from large areas in the country.
A question from the Deputy, please.
These are some of the issues that must be addressed by the Minister of State if the targets set by the Department are to be reached.
Deputy Sheehan will be aware of the Malone report, which examined all of the issues mentioned by him, as well as a number of other issues that affect the acreage being afforested each year. The report contains 18 principal recommendations, some of which are being implemented at present and some of which refer to the FEPS programme. One recommendation, which specifically proposed the reduction of the minimum area to be planted from eight to five hectares, is being implemented at present. In addition, a working group is to be established in fulfilment of one of the main recommendations and the Department looks forward to working closely with it to deal with the issues raised by Deputy Sheehan and others to try to ensure the target rate of planting can be achieved.
Does the Minister of State intend to honour the promise made by the former Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Mary Coughlan, in May 2007 regarding the obligation to replant harvested forestry lands?
I am not aware of the specific nature of the commitment made by the former Minister, Deputy Coughlan.
I will advise the Minister of State. The former Minister gave a commitment that the obligation to replant would be abolished.
That is one of a number of issues being considered in the context of new legislation.
The former Minister made a promise. Will it be implemented?
The undertaking is that legislation will be introduced in this area. In the context of this legislation——
Will the legislation involve a commitment to the abolition of the replanting obligation?
The legislation will examine this issue, as well as a considerable number of other issues. The Deputy and Members from all sides in both Houses will have an opportunity to make a case on scientific grounds, on the basis of the Malone report and other evidence, whether economic or otherwise. A judgment will be made on that basis.
I refer to the Malone report and the basis of the five hectare limit. Is this over-prescriptive and is there scope for further reductions in this regard? A ministerial prerogative is available to reduce it further, if necessary, in certain locations.
I assure the Deputy this is one of the issues to which the working group will give close consideration. It will be interesting to ascertain the impact of the reduction from eight hectares to five hectares. In the event of the working group making a recommendation in this regard, I certainly will look on it favourably, if possible.
Proposed Legislation.
Ulick Burke
Question:92 Deputy Ulick Burke asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will report on progress on the forestry Bill; when he will be in a position to publish the Bill; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19611/08]
Following a comprehensive review of the Forestry Act 1946, the heads of a proposed forestry Bill have been drafted and submitted to me for consideration. I am studying the implications of the Bill and hope to be in a position to present it to the Government shortly. I hope to publish the forestry Bill in the autumn.
The main objective in proposing a new forestry Bill is to introduce one principal Act, which will consolidate and update existing forestry legislation in the light of modern forestry knowledge and practice. The comprehensive legislative framework provided by the forestry Bill will support the development of a modern, multifunctional high-quality forestry sector.
Among the principal features of the Bill will be the introduction of a simpler and more streamlined felling licence system, the provision of a statutory basis for forestry guidelines and forest management plans, as well as provisions to enhance the protection of forests and plant health. It also is proposed to take a more flexible approach regarding the question of replanting after harvesting. However, the general principle of replanting after felling will remain to ensure that the national forest estate is maintained. The Bill will address many of the issues raised during the consultation process undertaken by the Department over the last number of years.
The overall thrust of the Bill is to provide for the development of forestry in a manner which maximises the economic, environmental and social value of forests within the principles of sustainable forest management. It will ensure that the best structures are in place for the development and efficient operation of the forest industry, the proper management of forests after planting and the protection and enhancement of the environment.
First, I congratulate the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Brendan Smith, and the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Tony Killeen, on their promotion to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I look forward to working with them and have known both of them for some time.
As for the Minister of State's reply, is he stating there has been no progress since the former Minister answered a similar question tabled by me in November 2007? This Bill has been in gestation since May 1998. I wish it a happy tenth anniversary, as ten years have passed since this Bill was first focused upon in 1998. While an elephant only takes 22 months to gestate and deliver her baby, ink has not been put to paper in respect of this Bill after ten years. This constitutes another fine example of paralysis by analysis. Is it not time this Bill was published? Will it be out of date by the time it is published? This measure seeks to update the Act of 1946, which is over 60 years old.
The Minister's party used the phrase "a lot done, more to do" in 2002. That was six years ago and this Bill is a case of "we have not seen a lot and we do not know how much more there is to do".
I thank Deputy Sheehan for his good wishes. I am sure he will accept that, whatever about gestation periods, six days in the Department is a short time to expect me to deliver on a ten-year process.
There is no fear that this Bill will be a premature baby.
I assure the Deputy that every effort will be made to bring the Bill before the Government as quickly as possible. I hope to have the Bill published in the autumn.
As with any regime change, one would hope there are plans for force majeure events. This has been ten years in the making.
I welcome the clear statement and, frankly, I hope it is true. This legislation was on the Order Paper when I came into this House, then it was taken off and it has appeared again. The confusion relating to this is genuine and, from the point of view of a spokesperson on agriculture, there has been no legislation on agriculture, fisheries, forestry or food in the past 12 months. For this reason I hope the statement is genuine and I look forward to the legislation.
I intend to prioritise this legislation. I acknowledge that a significant amount of time has passed but a great deal of work has been done on this Bill. I would like the heads of the Bill to go to the Government in the next month or so.
It does not take ten years to bring forward a Bill.
Grant Payments.
Seymour Crawford
Question:93 Deputy Seymour Crawford asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the action he will take to sort out those people who had their applications lodged in their local office for the new farm development scheme but not computerised; his views on whether it was not the fault of individual farmers that their applications were not dealt with on time; when they will be sanctioned; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19430/08]
The farm improvement scheme, FIS, was introduced by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in July 2007 with funding of €79 million, as agreed under the partnership agreement, Towards 2016. The scheme was suspended on 31 October 2007 as applications received had reached this level of funding. It was specifically made clear, at the time of its launch, that the scheme would be terminated when this financial ceiling had been reached and this was also specifically provided for in the terms and conditions of the scheme. Some 12,675 applications were received from farmers prior to the closing date of the scheme.
These applications are being processed within the Department up to the level of funding made available for the scheme in the above-mentioned partnership agreement.
I congratulate my constituency colleague, Deputy Brendan Smith, on his elevation to the office of Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I wish him the best and assure him that I will give all the positive and constructive help I can. I also congratulate Deputy Killeen on his appointment as Minister of State at that Department.
This scheme is very important, as the Minister, who comes from a county with a similar structure to mine, knows. The problem here arises due to applications that were lodged in departmental offices that do not use the computer system. Those applications are not, as yet, recognised. What is the legal situation of a person who has lodged an application in an office but has not been assured whether it will be taken? This is a major problem facing many farmers who do not know whether to proceed with projects of various sizes under their own steam or wait to see what will happen. Will the Minister advise when this group will know if the scheme is to be reopened?
I thank Deputy Crawford for his good wishes. He took the opportunity in other fora, in the constituency and elsewhere, to convey them to me.
As the Deputy knows, 12,675 applications were received from farmers under the FIS by the closing date, 31 October 2007. These applications are being processed up to the level of funding available. Applications received up to 31 October 2007 are being processed first and any funding that remains after they have been processed will be applied to the remaining applications.
As I said in my initial reply, it was outlined in the scheme and the press release accompanying its launch that €79 million was available for it. Some €6 million was available for the sow housing scheme at the time. In the partnership agreement, Towards 2016, a commitment was made to provide €85 million for this investment sector. It also provides for a review of its terms during 2008; this will provide an opportunity to reassess the financial terms of the agreement. It was made clear previously that the farm improvement scheme will not be reopened prior to a review.
With regard to this matter and Deputy Creed's point on processing, the faults may lie with a lack of staff in local offices. Deputy Crawford has outlined a case where the computer system was inactive. I know of a specific case in the local office in my constituency where there is a lack of staff. Responses from the Minister and the Department indicate that people have been recruited to update matters and attempt to catch up with FIS and the farm waste management scheme. These delays will put pressure on finality dates to comply with the terms and conditions of grant aid. Construction cannot take place if approval is not granted. There is planning permission but departmental approval has not been given due to staff constraints in offices and computer problems.
I am not familiar with the exact office that serves County Wicklow but I can check out the matter relating to staffing levels. I understand the close-off date for projects under the farm improvement scheme may be two years away. I am open to correction but it is not imminent. I will check the position relating to staffing levels in Wicklow that Deputy Doyle queried.
In light of the fact that in recent years the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has underspent by millions and sent money back, will the Minister examine the possibility of adding extra funds to this scheme? It is a very valuable scheme. Will the Minister get money from elsewhere in his Department, or anywhere else, to ensure that those who have applied will be allowed to go ahead as quickly as possible?
I know that some people from Deputy Crawford's county, Monaghan, would say Cavan people would not send back money. I am sure that some of the farmers from our two counties who were caught in the time lapse and spoke to Deputy Crawford also spoke to me.
Many were from Cavan.
Are they on speaking terms?
There is provision in Towards 2016 to have a review of the terms of this scheme during 2008.
There is €25 million in mixed grazing.
I do not wish to be parochial but this matter relates to the offices in north Cork, specifically Mallow, where structural issues have existed for some time that make it difficult for staff to process grants claims. I want to raise this with the Minister while we are on the subject.
I am not familiar with the staffing levels of particular offices in County Cork but I will bring this matter to the attention of the Department's personnel section. Above all Departments, there has been a huge investment in technology in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in recent years. This has led to progress and efficiency and I am sure the programme will continue.
Can the Leas-Cheann Comhairle include Question No. 128 with Question No. 94?
It is not for me to group questions and I have not been advised that these questions should be taken together. That is a matter for the Minister.
I thought the Leas-Cheann Comhairle had the power to group questions.
I will let the Deputy contribute in response to this question.
Fisheries Protection.
Jim O'Keeffe
Question:94 Deputy Jim O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food his views on whether administrative sanctions for minor sea fisheries offences are applicable in many member states in the European Union; if his attention has been drawn to the recent changes proposed or implemented in Britain, Scotland and Northern Ireland; and if he has proposals for change in dealing with minor offences here. [19544/08]
Ireland holds a very important position as custodian of some of the largest and richest fishing waters within the EU and in our location on the edge of the Atlantic Ocean. Ireland continues to maintain high standards in the enforcement of regulations within the exclusive fisheries zone using the resources of the Naval Service, the Air Corps and the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority.
Systems for dealing with infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy vary greatly among member states and useful comparisons are not easily drawn. Many continental legal systems are different from that of Ireland and lend themselves to a structure of administrative fines and penalties. Previous advice from the Attorney General indicated that under the Irish legal system the types of penalty Ireland is obliged to apply under the Common Fisheries Policy would be viewed as criminal in nature and, therefore, could only be administered by the courts by virtue of Articles 34, 37 and 38 of the Constitution. Administrative fines for fisheries offences could be introduced in Ireland if this were a requirement under European law. I am supportive of any positive proposals from the Commission in this regard.
Under the current legislation, the Sea-fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006, all sanctions are purely financial in nature. The Act simply sets down the maximum fines that may be applied. No minimum fine is set and it is a matter for a judge, taking into account the specific case, to determine the actual fine levied. The Act also applies for the first time a scaled approach to setting maximum fines, whereby the maximum fines set for smaller vessels are less than those for larger vessels. In that respect, the 2006 Act sought to guarantee a degree of proportionality for fines based on vessel size, a factor which did not exist in previous legislation.
The Department is currently reviewing the operation of sanctions under the Act in light of experience since its enactment. Officials of the Department will be consulting with, among others, industry representatives, the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority and the Office of the Attorney General in the course of this review. The recent changes introduced by the UK authorities, whereby administrative sanctions have been introduced for a small number of minor offences, will also be considered as part of this review.
I make a strong plea to the new Minister on this issue. He will possibly recall the rather bruising debate we had a couple of years ago on the Sea-fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill. There are two aspects of this issue that I ask the Minister to bear in mind. The fishing community genuinely feels its members are being tagged as criminals for committing very minor offences. In addition, major costs were imposed on them due to the locking up of their boats in port while they attended court, as well as other costs and expenses. Does the Minister accept the opinion of the EU Commissioners, who recorded a view that administrative sanctions can be an effective way of increasing compliance?
Over the past 12 months there have been regular meetings on this issue among the UK Administrations in Whitehall, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Earlier this year, the Scottish authorities introduced a new regime, under the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007 (Fixed Penalty Notices) Order 2008, which allows for administrative sanctions. Leaving aside the bruising battles of the past, would the Minister accept there is a way around the Attorney General's concerns on the basis of consent? Will the Minister keep an open mind and talk to the fishing community and interested parties with a view to finding a decent solution to this problem?
I intend to meet all interests in this sector as soon as possible. The first meeting, which will be attended by me and the Minister, Deputy Smith, takes place on Thursday. The Deputy and others in the House will accept that penalties must be a deterrent and must be dissuasive. To this end, they must involve depriving the wrongdoer, at a minimum, of the benefits of his or her action. Deputy O'Keeffe, more than most, will be aware of the provisions and implications of Articles 34, 37 and 38 of the Constitution in this regard. As I said, all options are being considered. It is not necessarily the case, in this instance, that administrative fines would be better for people who are guilty of minor offences.
We are now the odd man out in Europe on this issue.
I promised I would allow Deputy Sheehan to put a question briefly.
We seem to be the best Europeans in the Union. Not only are we implementing the EU regulations, but we are penalising our fishermen more severely than any other member state. No other member state imposes criminal sanctions on its fishermen for these offences.
I am sure there is a question coming.
There was no stipulation from the European Union to criminalise Irish fishermen. Why did the Government implement such a rash measure on our fishing skippers?
The Deputy is correct that there was no such stipulation from the EU, but there was a stipulation regarding the level of fine to be imposed which, because of the implications of Articles 34, 37 and 38, had the effect to which the Deputy refers. All of this is being considered. The Minister and I will engage with the industry and we will try to address these issues to the greatest extent possible.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.