It was brought to my attention that a small farmer in north County Meath applied for REPS in 1996 and a review took place three years later in 1999. Following inspection, a 10% penalty was imposed on the landowner for failing to trim back a hedgerow, as stated in his plan submitted in 1996.
The farmer appealed the decision to the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and his appeal was supported by the ICMSA and by the IFA. Having considered the matter, the members of the committee upheld the decision on the basis of the plan submitted by the farmer. The matter was further appealed. The first appeals officer upheld the decision on 1 April. That decision was appealed on 4 May 1999 and the committee upheld the decision. This matter was passed to a further inspector on 27 October, who carried out an inspection of the lands in question. His report stated that the hedgerow is a back double ditch with a great deal of thorn bushes growing on it as well as various mature trees such as ash, hazel, birch and sycamore. The relevant plan and the original plan stated that this hedgerow was to be breasted in year three of the REPS plan, but this decision is questionable. The hedgerow was bare on the day of inspection, but I am sure that in summer it provides good necessary shelter for the animals on this very high ground. The ground, although on the top of a hill, is very wet and heavy and evidence of machinery damage is still apparent more than one year later. There was clear evidence of hand-cutting of this hedgerow by the farmer.
The recommendation of the inspector was that it would have been contrary to environmentally friendly farming to machine this hedgerow at the expense of the soil in the adjoining field. Thus, the correct decision was taken by the farmer to discontinue this work. However, the farmer had made attempts to cut this hedgerow by hand and the hedge is in a very healthy condition generally. The inspector recommended that the penalty of 10% be removed.
What is the point in an inspector reviewing a decision taken by original inspectors and recommending a change if the Department officials do not implement that change? The farmer in question has a small farm in north County Meath. He suffered serious damage and loss last year as a result of the fodder crisis. The Minister of State might have visited that farm or the area close to it. The Minister of State, who has responsibility for this scheme, should make a blanket decision on the basis of decisions made by inspectors. If they recommend the original decision be changed, they should be the final arbiter on the matter. There were three inspections of this matter, the original appeal, one by the committee and another inspector was asked to carry out an inspection to make a decision on this matter. This is not the only such case, I have heard of many others. The Department should give a direction that in the event of a decision not being upheld on appeal, payment should be made immediately.
