Vol. 542 No. 5
103 Mrs. Barnes asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the reason extra payments under the REP scheme made to farmers whose land is traversed by walkways have been terminated; his proposals to reintroduce these or analogous payments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25086/01]
140 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the reason extra payments made under the REP scheme to farmers whose land is traversed by walkways have been terminated; if he has proposals to reintroduce these or analogous payments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25094/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 103 and 140 together.
The rural environment protection scheme for the period 1994 to 1999 included the use of land for public access and leisure facilities as a supplementary measure. My Department submitted agri-environmental proposals for the programme period 2000-06 to the European Commission under Regulation 1257/1999 on support for rural development. The proposal included the supplementary measure on public access. The Commission determined that the use of land for public access and leisure facilities was not provided for under Regulation 1257/1999 as a co-financed measure. I sought to have it included in the REP scheme as purely a nationally funded measure as a State aid. The Commission did not agree to this course of action. Arising from this, the measure could not be included under the current REPS.
I am aware of the significance of walkways for tourism and as a leisure amenity for urban dwellers. In that regard, the concern of landowners needs to be taken account of. Accordingly, it is important that an appropriate funding mechanism is put in place so as to ensure that landowner costs including public liability insurance are provided for in so far as they relate to access to private lands encompassing walkways. The potential for sourcing of funding elsewhere than under REPS is being considered by my Department and representatives of the relevant tourism interests in the context of developing the operating strategy for rural/agri-tourism in the period to 2006.
I take it from the bureaucratic recital I got that the Minister of State is saying that though this measure was proposed to the Commission as part of the current REPS, it was refused by the Commission on the grounds of the cited regulation or directive and that the Minister of State is now considering, with the tourism interests, whether it might not be carried out under another programme. Will the Minister of State give any indication of how long it might take to have that consideration done and whether such a measure might be in place for the main walking season next year?
The answer to the first part is no, it is not that easy just to say how and when it will come in but I take the Deputy's point to heart. It is very desirable that such a scheme be available for next year's walking season because it is a major concern both to those who walk the land and the farmers whose land is traversed. We will be working on this.
The Deputy might call this bureaucratic-speak but it clearly outlines under what regulation the door was completely closed on the REPS route, which was the route everyone had availed of until then.
Pious words do not butter bread as far as those farmers are concerned. This matter is very topical in my constituency. Is the Minister of State aware that the farmers concerned are threatening to withdraw people's rights to traverse pathways on their land unless they are compensated? Unless the Minister of State comes up with a plan quickly, there will be a shock in store for tourists taking those walks next season.
As the Deputy will be aware, we proposed to deal with this under REPS because that would be the simplest way to solve the problem. The matter is being considered because I was very concerned when this issue was raised with me and I wanted to find a solution for it. However, this is not just a question of compensation; it is basically a grant. It is not compensation; who are we compensating?
Some people do not understand the dictionary definition of compensation. The Deputy is asking that payment be made to farmers for facilitating other people to walk across their lands. In that context if it was a direct payment it would come under State aid, I presume, so it is not that simple. We will work on this issue as quickly as possible. We will look at any possible angle to resolve it but I cannot give a guarantee here as I hate giving guarantees something can be solved until I have the thing solved satisfactorily. It is just not possible to do things that way. If I knew the answer today I would give it to the Deputy. He will know that it is difficult in this job to give timescales.
Will the Minister of State consider putting such a measure into the tourism context? Does he agree that it can at least be cogently argued and without any tongue in cheek element that we are talking here about tourism and not agriculture? On that basis might a different approach be taken that would not incur the wrath of the bureaucrats in Brussels?
If the Deputy had listened to my comprehensive reply, I said that we were looking at it in the context—
The Minister of State should look up the dictionary definition of comprehensive. It does not necessarily mean rambling.
No. I have answered the Deputy's question but he obviously was not listening: " . . . representatives of the relevant tourism interests in the context of developing the operating strategy for rural/agri-tourism in the period to 2006." That is exactly—
Leave "agri" out of it.
No, it has to be in agri-tourism. It must be in tourism which has to do with agriculture. Obviously, anything done in that context would come under the general remit of agri-tourism, as it is commonly called. The Deputy may call it "tourism over farmland" or whatever he wants, but it is being considered in the exact context he suggested. If he has any other suggestions for resolving this problem, I would be delighted to hear them. We are genuinely anxious to resolve it because it is recognised as a problem.
The farmers concerned are not interested in whether it will be compensation or a grant as long as they get monetary return for what they must spend on public liability insurance policies, etc.
Does the Deputy have a question?
It boils down to the fact that the Department does not seem to understand the serious situation in the particular regions concerned.
I will take a question from Deputy Connaughton before the Minister of State replies.
The Minister of State sought advice for that particular scheme and I will give him some. Whatever he does, he should make sure that he does not let Dúchas in on the act because if that happens, it will never come about.
In reply to both Deputies, it is easy to identify a problem, but we are circumvented by regulation to a great degree. We must comply with the various European regulations. It is a cheap shot to blame the agents or to shoot the messenger.
To shoot the farmers.
No, to shoot the messenger rather than the message. We can only come up with a solution to this problem within what is legally possible. We are trying to do so. I invited Deputy Dukes to give me advice and now invite Deputy Connaughton and Deputy Sheehan to do so. If they can come up with a feasible solution tomorrow, which we have not thought of and which is in accordance with all EU regulations, etc., I will certainly look at it. We are looking positively at the matter.
If he waits until June, we will do it for him. He should try and do it until then.
When I was on the other side of the House I was always ready to lend my good advice to his colleagues.
We must move on to Question No. 104. Deputy Penrose has been waiting patiently all afternoon for his question.
The Minister, Deputy Walsh, can solve that problem with Deputy Sheehan.
