Pippa Hackett (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I will deal with those first and then we can catch up with the rest later. I thank the Chairman for his welcome of the programme. We all share the hope that the programme will deliver what it needs to deliver.

While more land is now not eligible to plant, there still is a considerable amount of land that is eligible to be planted on. Farmers can engage with foresters and Teagasc advisers who will indicate to them if the land is eligible. Regarding depreciation of the land, that is just the way things go. I do not believe there will be a package to compensate for that. This is just the nature of forestry. It is a fit in certain parts of the country and not in others. That is just the reality of it.

I believe the Chairman spoke about the 437 eligible applications in the system. It is reflective of the type of applications we get in. As I said, 3% are now ruled out because they are within 1.5 km of a curlew site. That is probably reflective overall of those areas; those farmers or foresters do not tend to apply in those areas. In one sense, while it is frustrating for those applicants, it is still only 3% of the total. It is welcome that almost a quarter are entirely unaffected by the changes. These applicants will be aware that they were going to be subject to the new requirements under the new programme to adhere to state aid rules. We will actively engage with them. Some of these analyses can be done as a desktop exercise and some will require someone to visit the sites and examine them in more detail. We now have sufficient boots on the ground to be able to deliver on that in a very tight timeframe. It is essential that we support these applicants to plant if they can.

I would disagree with the Chairman in one sense. He implied that there is no real incentive for farmers or that it was not big enough. Moving from 15 years to 20 years is a 33% increase. While the premium payments per year might be the same, those five years are important to farmers. Farmers and farm organisations called for a longer period. We have gone from periods of 20 years to 15 years and we are now back to 20 years because that was what was requested. The Chairman will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe when we moved to 15 years, it was to front-load it more to incentivise farmers to come in. We have heard the request to have it increased. A tax-free period of 20 years is a generous support for farmers and many of them are interested. I can certainly attest to that from engagements I had at the National Ploughing Championships this year.

The Chairman's fourth point related to the claim in the advertising. He is right that there have been legacy issues with water quality particularly in areas, such as Leitrim and perhaps further west. We absolutely must learn from those issues. However, there is ample evidence that trees planted and managed in the right way can deliver valuable water quality improvements. Work with the EPA and the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, would support that view. It comes down to the trees being managed appropriately and being planted in the right manner. We do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past as part of this programme