Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 23 Nov 2000

Vol. 526 No. 5

Ceisteanna–Questions. Priority Questions. - Grant Payments.

Paul Connaughton

Ceist:

5 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources the reason a stronger case is not being made at EU level to have all forestry grant payments index linked in the future; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that there are more than 7,000 forestry farmers who are severely discriminated against due to the fact that retrospective forestry premia have not been paid to this group; if he has satisfied himself with the forestry uptake this season; if his attention has further been drawn to the fact that there is a lack of confidence among many farmers because of his inability to get premium updates for all farmers and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26983/00]

The application for higher forestry incentives submitted to the European Commission last year included a provision allowing for review of the rates at three yearly intervals. Such reviews provide a better safeguard in maintaining the value of the forest premium for farmers and other beneficiaries. For example, had last year's application been based on indexation the level of increase would have been about 6% compared to the average of 30% actually achieved and announced by me last March. The rationale behind the premium is to compensate farmers for the income loss in changing from farming to forestry.

The application also proposed increased premium levels for those who planted in earlier years under Council regulation 2090/82, but it did not prove possible to secure increases in the negotiations which were concluded last March. I indicated at that time that, having secured my immediate priority of increasing the incentives for current planting, I would shortly pursue the question of adequate increases for those who planted in earlier years and I have done so. A further proposal was submitted to the Commission in April and the matter has been pursued vigorously by my officials and me in the meantime. I was involved in useful discussions on our proposal with the Commission last month and will be having a further meeting next week. The House can be assured that I will do all in my power to secure satisfactory increased premia for those involved.

In recent years planting levels, while very substantial, have been significantly below target for a variety of reasons. Following two good years in 1995 and 1996 planting fell to a low of 11,403 hectares in 1997. The outturn for 1998 and 1999 was 12,928 hectares and 12,668 hectares respectively. It may be too early yet to say that we have turned the corner in terms of planting with the revised rates expected to have an impact next year.

Additional InformationI am nonetheless pleased that the latest planting forecast for this year is 15,000 hectares. Planting projections for the next five years are in the range of 16,000 to 20,000 hectares. Apart from the impact of higher levels of financial incentives, the provision for increased integration of forestry and REPS, included in the Rural Development Plan 2000-2006, should contribute to reaching those targets. I am in regular contact with the farming bodies and they are fully supportive of my proposals.

Like everybody in the forestry business I congratulate the Minister of State on one part of the programme. I always believe in complimenting a man when he is entitled to it. However, the Government has made a major tactical error. More than 7,000 farmers should be compensated with a retrospective top-up of forestry premia. The uptake of the new system, good as it may appear, will not approach the level outlined by the Minister of State and his advisers because people are afraid of what will happen as a result of the lack of indexation due to inflation. They believe they will not be compensated in years when inflation is running at 6% or 7%.

If the Minister of State is unable to negotiate at EU for a retrospective top-up of premia will he give a commitment to the House that the Government will pick up the tab because of the significance of what is involved? He cannot expect that those involved in forestry will be able to withstand the devaluation of their plantations. It is a serious matter of confidence for the future. Should the EU not come up trumps, will the Government bridge the gap?

I thank the Deputy for his compliment and I expect he will do so again on the next occasion I am present in the House for Question Time.

The Deputy is a decent man.

That is a dangerous comment.

Having achieved a 30% increase it proved wise to pursue one aspect of the programme rather than pursuing all aspects and achieving little. The EU view is that the 7,000 farmers signed a contract, accepted what was available and, therefore, should be satisfied. However, neither the farmers nor I am satisfied. I was in Brussels two weeks ago and I intend to travel again next week to pursue this issue. The Deputy also mentioned indexation as opposed to a three yearly review. During the previous discussions at EU level, the Deputy's colleague, Deputy Yates, sought a three yearly review—

That was a once-off.

—which was wise because we achieved a 30% increase instead of 6%. I am seeking three yearly reviews and at the end of the day those involved in forestry will thank me for it.

Barr
Roinn