Vol. 492 No. 1
9 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the reason for the decision to change the compensation levels for special areas of conservation or national heritage areas in the new REP scheme; the savings, if any, involved; and the number of farmers this will affect. [13317/98]
12 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the reason he has changed the compensation measures for the REP scheme in relation to national heritage areas and special areas of conservation; if his attention has been drawn to the extra financial pressure this will put on farmers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13316/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 12 together.
Under the new arrangements for REPS agreed at the agricultural structures committee of the EU Commission in April last, increased payments will be available in all natural heritage areas, special protection areas and all commonages. This compares with the original proposals submitted to the EU Commission which would have confined the compensation package to lands designated special areas of conservation, special protection areas and overgrazed commonages in designated DEDs.
The number of farmers who will benefit from the increased payments and the extension of these areas will be 15,000 compared with 6,000 under the original proposal. The payment rates under the new package will be £80 per acre for the first 100 acres, £8 per acre between 101 and 200 acres and £6 per acre between 201 and 300 acres. These rates represent an increase on the payment levels originally submitted of £77, £6 and £5 respectively for farmers with SAC areas and overgrazed commonages.
The new payment rates will, however, be confined to the actual areas inside the designated zones with basic REPS payments of £50 per acre continuing to be made, to a maximum of 40 hectares, on other lands. The EU Commission insisted that the increased payments could only be made on the actual acreage in the areas concerned but agreed that the measure could be extended to include NHAs and all commonages. This effectively increased the target area by some 370,000 acres with a consequent increase in planned expenditure of £30 million over the scheme confined to SACs, SPAs and designated overgrazed commonage.
This will mean, for the average existing REPS 80 acre farmer in an NHA, an increase in the annual payment from £4,960 to £6,400. The maximum NHA payment increases from the current £6,200 per annum to £9,400. The new arrangements also involve the following key adjustments: the abolition of the ten acre rule for commonage land; the extension of payments to farmers up to a new limit of 300 acres in the designated areas; the introduction of a facility to move the boundaries of natural heritage areas where it is necessary to avoid anomalies and the substantial increase in social welfare allowances for REPS payments.
Furthermore, the new arrangements will run for 15 years and will increase the overall value of REPS to £205 million per annum from the year 2000 with payments in 1998 amounting to £145 million, increasing to £178 million in 1999. The payment levels agreed under the REPS package are based on the average costs of the additional restrictions and farming conditions which will apply in these areas.
The increased payment rates will more than compensate farmers for any restrictions in these designated areas. The new payments are also more beneficial to farmers as a result of the substantial increases in social welfare allowances negotiated to take account of the increased payments available to REPS farmers under the new package.
While the new payments will benefit farmers in commonage areas, the constituencies represented by me and by the Minister of State have areas of land, called callows, where farmers have small acreages. Smallholders such as these, particularly in my constituency and in the west generally, will lose out under the scheme. Does the Minister of State intend to provide extra funding for these farmers? They will be severely restricted by the regulations but will not get adequate compensation. There are also implications for farmers who are not in the REP scheme. There are benefits for farmers within the scheme but many farmers who are not prepared to participate in it will lose out as a result of these regulations.
Has special consideration been given to farmers on the banks of the River Suck where up to 90 per cent of farms are included in NHAs and SACs? These compensation payments are inadequate because the majority of farms are completely restricted. Building slatted sheds and spreading slurry is restricted in these areas and the farmers' livelihoods are under threat. Will the Minister consider further allocation of funding for compensation in these exceptional cases?
I accept there may be some problems for some farmers. However, I do not accept that farmers beside a river are restricted. Last week silage effluent destroyed a number of miles of river. Fisheries reports show that declining stock or kill off is an increasing problem in all areas.
Eighty pounds an acre is a good starting income for the year. The Deputy is talking about farmers in his constituency who are in receipt of social welfare payments. The increase is huge and means the exemption of the first £2,000 from assessment. A further 50 per cent of the balance of REPS payments is disregarded in the case of social welfare recipients. Someone can receive
£3,500, which is equivalent to £70 per week, and still get social welfare payments.
This increase will help smaller farmers, particularly in the areas to which the Deputy referred. Farming will be more environmentally friendly and stock produced will be more acceptable than under the requirements of commercial farming.
As regards SACs in callow areas, what will happen if the present weather continues throughout the summer? Farmers are restricted to cutting hay in August. If the rain persists they may not be able to get their hay and fodder for the winter. Will the Minister guarantee additional compensation for those farmers? A small number of acres are involved but it is vitally important for fodder reserves in the winter. Does the Minister intend to reintroduce the control of farmyard pollution grant and if so, when?
The Deputy is a supreme pessimist if he thinks the rain will last — it is not forty days and forty nights.
It happened before.
It has not stopped since the last election.
We used to say "Cork beat and the hay saved" in my county. Unfortunately, Waterford beat us and the hay is not saved yet. We expect conditions to improve. However, if such a disastrous situation arises the plight of small farmers will have to be looked at, particularly in SACs which are more restricted than others. Fodder is an essential part of farming. I do not see how these regulations will prevent farmers earning any income during the winter period. I am more optimistic about the weather than Deputy Naughten.
What about the control of farmyard pollution grants, especially for small farmers?
That is a separate question.
The Minister will have to give an answer tonight, if he does not have one now. I acknowledge that the Minister's reply is factual. However, if one was not up to date, one would almost believe it was good news for everybody. Surely the Minister has not forgotten the U-turn of his Department and the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands on the deal done on behalf of Irish farmers 12 months ago where people with bog in the SACs would be compensated for every acre they had outside it. There was not a word about that. Those 6,000 farmers came out worst of all. The Minister let them down.
That deal was agreed with farming organisations only 12 months ago but the Department did not push it through at European level. There are huge numbers of farmers in each county with turbary in SACs. There are several hundred farmers in east County Galway who are at a serious financial loss because of the changes. That pertains across the country, in small and big numbers, depending on the size of the turbary. The Minister did not include that in his answer. I hope he does not expect people to have forgotten about it.
I remind the Deputy that when in Government, his Minister agreed to a package in October 1996 which was relevant to many of those areas.
The Minister accepted it — he is in Government.
I do not see how the Deputy can see the proposal as retrograde — all commonages are included.
The Minister should talk about the people I am talking about.
Fifteen thousand farmers will get extra payments, as against 6,000 under the old scheme. That is an improvement.
It is an improvement for them, but what about the people on whom the Minister turned his back?
It is an improvement for smaller farmers in mountainous regions with a great deal of commonages or cow parks as they were called in many areas.
What about the people in the bogs on whom the Minister turned his back?
We did not turn our backs on them. The matter has been considered in both Departments and they have been more than adequately compensated. It is a good payment and if there is room for improvement, the Department will make improvements.
The REP scheme is the best one ever introduced.
Forty five million pounds for Mayo.
However, in recent years there have been many changes to it. In recent weeks farmers have received letters from the Department of Agriculture and Food informing them they are to be penalised. The planners are telling them they are doing their job correctly but the Department of Agriculture and Food inspectors are telling them their applications are incorrect. The planners should be penalised, rather than farmers.
A question to the Minister.
Why are these farmers not being paid? Does the Department have the money? Some farmers are in their second year waiting for funding. Their applications have been cleared and they still cannot get their payments.
I am glad the Deputy appreciates the £45 million Mayo has received under the scheme, which is of huge benefit to farmers in the area.
If the Department keeps changing the scheme, nobody will get anything.
They are getting an increase of £30 extra per acre.
They are being penalised.
The Minister should be allowed to reply.
There are restrictions and rules which must be obeyed. I accept what the Deputy is saying about some of the planners. I recently came across a case where a planner did not even walk the farm but completed an application from a map at the kitchen table. His insurance should be examined because that farmer has lost his grant. That is why a planner has insurance and it should be looked at in that light.
Professional planners should give professional advice. It is difficult when a Departmental inspector finds that ditches which were removed six years ago are included in a map. There are extraordinary cases where people have moved ditches and filled in ponds in the meantime. The purpose of the payment is to ensure the preservation of natural habitat. The attitude of the Department, particularly the inspectorate, is to try to be inclusive rather than exclusive.
The planners should be dealt with.
I do not believe that for a minute.
