Noel Davern
Question:16 Mr. Davern asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he is in favour of a fixed charge per hectare to farmers for the drawing up of REP scheme plans. [3136/97]
Other Questions. - REP Scheme Fees.
Martin Cullen
Question:19 Mr. Cullen asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he is in favour of a fixed charge per hectare to farmers for the drawing up of REP scheme plans. [3134/97]
Gerard Collins
Question:57 Mr. Collins asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he is in favour of a fixed per hectare charge to farmers for the drawing up of REP scheme plans. [3130/97]
Gerard C. Connolly
Question:65 Mr. Connolly asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he is in favour of a fixed per hectare charge to farmers for the drawing up of REP scheme plans. [3132/97]
Hugh Byrne
Question:73 Mr. H. Byrne asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he is in favour of a fixed per hectare charge to farmers for the drawing up of REP scheme plans. [3129/97]
I propose to take Parliamentary Questions Nos. 16, 19, 57, 65 and 73 together.
My Department has no function in the determination of fees for the preparation of agri-environmental plans. REP scheme plans are prepared by planners approved by my Department and farmers are free to choose any planner from the approved list. I do not intend to change this approach in the future.
There is disquiet throughout the country at the variation in charges for the preparation of REP scheme plans. Can the Minister of State give an assurance that in the future there will be a flat rate or a consistent, standard charge for the preparation of such plans?
The Department does not intend to become involved in the level of charges. However, the Agricultural Consultants' Association, which represents about 50 private planners, has a standard charge. We are trying to create competition in the market by adding new planners and we are running a course for new planners from 18 to 20 February. There are already 240 planning agencies, plus Teagasc, which is supplying 200 offices. We have competition between the agencies and that will improve with the introduction of new planners. This should ensure that charges for plans are kept at a reasonable level. It is up to farmers to decide the level of charges with their planners. If a farmer is not happy with the level of charge I suggest he seek the advice of an alternative planner.
How can the Minister be satisfied that he should not become involved? In the interests of the success of the REP scheme, should prices not be consistent and standard throughout the country? Is he satisfied that the relationship between private planners, his Department officials and Teagasc is harmonious?
I understand there is a standard charge; Teagasc charges about £300 and private planners charge in the region of £500 to £600 plus a fee per hectare. Farmers have a choice between these different planners. There is a good relationship between my Department and the private planners, they operate successfully together. As regards the relationship between Teagasc and the Agricultural Consultants' Association, I understand that association is to complain to the Competition Authority that Teagasc is using its subsidised position to illegal advantage. Our Department will not get involved in the dispute but apparently the complaint will be made.
Will an input from an environmental scientist be required for REP applications from within NHAs and SPAs? If it is, there will be a substantial cost, so is it the intention of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry to subsidise or pay the full cost of the consultant? Can the Minister inform us when the second half of the first REP scheme payment will be made?
This is the subject of a later question but I will respond. A system on REP scheme planning for NHAs has been agreed with the farming organisations. Certain standards and procedures must be complied with by farmers in NHAs who are using the REP scheme. It will depend on the plan submitted by the planner and they will not need the services of a scientist. I think that any fears which exist are unfounded.
We are glad to hear that.
After extensive negotiations and discussions between my Department, the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht and the farming organisations, agreement was reached and announced last October and it is acceptable to farmers. Farmers will have to farm in an approved fashion within NHAs. The plan will be the normal one drawn up by the planner.
Will compensation be paid?
Of course. A £10 top-up for REP schemes has been proposed but has not yet been agreed. In those areas outside SACs where farmers will not be in the REP scheme, discussions are ongoing about compensation based on headage and premia payments. There is no delay in REP scheme payments. We have already paid out £100 million and the scheme is now an important part of the income of farming communities and rural areas. The scheme is working well at the moment, over 23,000 first applicants have been approved and paid and over £100 million has been paid out. This is possibly one of the best schemes ever introduced in Ireland and it has been handled efficiently by our Department and all involved.
When will the first REP scheme payments to farmers be made? Does the Minister not think that the lack of a fixed fee is a disincentive to farmers to apply? Some are reluctant to do so.
We paid out over £80 million in the first fees.
To how many applicants?
To 23,000 applicants.
It is a terrific success story, with £101 million paid out so far.
Given the uptake of the scheme there is no problem with the planners. With the efforts of the Minister, the officials and myself the scheme is operating successfully. Prior to Christmas a team of EU auditors visited the country and were happy with the way we managed the scheme in compliance with the specification, through carrying out regular checks and evaluations.
The Minister should not praise himself.
I thank Deputy O'Keeffe for giving me the opportunity to respond to him.
Has any progress been made with the Commission on the position of people on commonage who are operating the REP scheme? Many people in the west are in the REP scheme but those who have leased commonage have had problems. Is there any up to date information and will these people be accepted and paid in the near future?
That is an extension of the question but the Minister may wish to respond.
No doubt Deputy Ring is aware of the arrangement reached in January 1996 whereby special provision was made for people to reduce their stocking levels in commonages, especially where there was agreement between the various owners. This has worked quite successfully in some areas. In other areas there has not been a great take-up. It has been agreed by the Commission. There is a destocking incentive for farmers with attractive compensation and I hope there will be a greater take-up in the future.
The two Ministers opposite will recall the very colourful Deputy Sheehan saying that the country would become just a national park, and I am very happy that they have changed their tune on the question of the REPS. Have they not the generosity to admit that this was a wonderful scheme introduced with great foresight by Fianna Fáil?
When we took over, this scheme had been in operation for about six months. There were about 300 approved applicants and there was very little interest in it.
The first decision was to slow it down, to turn off the tap on it because it was so successful.
The Minister of State should answer the question he was asked.
Unlike Deputy Walsh, I have always been magnanimous in politics and will readily recognise the contribution of any politician. I accept that this is a creative scheme which arose from the reforms of 1992. However, we deserve some of the credit for driving this scheme and popularising it, despite the fact that Fianna Fáil tried to pour as much cold water on it as possible when they went into Opposition.