Hugh Byrne
Ceist:26 Mr. H. Byrne asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the steps, if any, he will take to ensure that resources are available in order that the REPs scheme is adequately funded. [2001/96]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Rural Environment Protection Scheme.
Brian Cowen
Ceist:33 Mr. Cowen asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the amount of money allocated for the REPS scheme in 1996. [1856/96]
Máirín Quill
Ceist:46 Miss Quill asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he will provide an assurance that sufficient funding will be made available to meet the full costs of the rural environment protection scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1844/96]
Denis Foley
Ceist:60 Mr. Foley asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the average payment for each REPS scheme recipient. [1870/96]
Denis Foley
Ceist:61 Mr. Foley asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the number of farmers at current levels of average payment who can be accommodated within the 1996 budget for the REPS scheme. [1871/96]
Donal Moynihan
Ceist:63 Mr. Moynihan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the plans, if any, he has to give preference to REPS scheme applications from people with an entitlement to unemployment assistance in view of the fact that the current allocation for REPS is about half of what will be required for 1996 and in view of the proposals to disregard the first £2,000 from REPS for social welfare purposes which effectively removes a significant barrier to participation in REPS. [1875/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 26, 33, 46, 60, 61 and 63 together. The budget allocation for the REPS scheme for 1996 is £41.561 million as against an estimated 1995 outturn of £29.6 million. The 1996 allocation will provide payments for a total of approximately 12,100 existing and new participants in the scheme. The average payment in 1995 was approximately £3,400. I am keeping the funding of REPS under close review with a view to ensuring that sufficient funds are available to meet expected demand. I have no plans to give preferential treatment to any category of applicant under the scheme.
That was a short answer.
It was a Civil Service answer.
It was not much to the point. Does the Minister accept that £80 million is required for the REPS scheme in 1996 even though he has rightly said that only £41.5 million has been allocated? Given that £31.5 million will be paid to those already in the scheme, that leaves £9.5 million for the 14,000 applicants about whom Deputy Deenihan told us. Does the Minister agree that only 3,000 of the 14,000 new applicants may expect payment in 1996?
It would be wrong of the Deputy to make any presumptions about the number of people who will avail of the scheme in 1996. Changes in the TB scheme, to which I referred earliier in the post budget table, will release funds which can be transferred within the Department. This is one of many possibilities for providing extra revenue and resources for REPS.
Will there be an allocation of £350 million to Ireland for REPS, 75 per cent of which is to be paid by the EU and the remainder by the Government? Does the Minister agree that farmers have shown tremendous interest in the scheme and that his failure to make an impact at Cabinet level to secure any meaningful matching funds has effectively resulted in the discontinuation of the scheme for many?
The Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan, and I have worked unrelentingly to develop the scheme. One of the difficulties we inherited was that it had a bad name when we came into office. The number of applications was appallingly low when the scheme was launched in 1994. Changes with regard to over-grazing, converting the CFP rule from one to three years and the latest concession in the budget which will mean that the first £2,000 of REPS money will be discounted from the means test, are significant indications of the Government's commitment to the scheme. I will carefully monitor the financial requirements of the scheme based on the level of applicants.
The Minister is strong on monitoring but poor on payment.
As is the case with the CFP and so many other messes I inherited, I will ensure that this scheme reaches its full potential.
We might get an honest answer before we finish.
I hope so. Will the Minister ensure that his three card trick of finding £600,000 for overtime in his Department will not be taken from the REPS fund for 1996?
That is a most inaccurate statement. These overtime payments will be discussed on the Adjournment. I have nothing to hide.
It was a three card trick and sleight of hand.
Not an extra penny was added to the liabilities of taxpayers as a result of that arrangement. I have a particular priority as Minister to have a strong customer focus in my Department.
A strong PR machine.
Unlike my predecessors, I believe in delivering payments on time and ensuring that Ireland's most important industry is properly facilitated.
We will deal with that on the Adjournment.
I will deal with it and I am perfectly happy to stand over the decisions I made. The scheme is terrific in terms of net benefit to the Exchequer. We receive three to one matching funding from Europe. If necessary, I will raise with the Minister for Finance, as we monitor the scheme through the year, the need for extra funding.
The Minister should not make promises he cannot keep.
This will involve only a quarter of the funding required. REPS does not involve the Structural Funds but FEOGA guarantee fund moneys. The indicative figure the Deputy gave is the provision which has been made for a number of years until 1998 or 1999.
The Minister will be long gone by then.
It is my intention that REPS will reach fruition. If additional money is required, there are a number of options I can consider. There could be lateral movements within my Department's budget.
The Minister should ask the Minister for Social Welfare for a few bob.
There will be definite opportunities with regard to ERAD changes. I do not want to specify a figure at this stage.
This is the Minister's worst performance yet.
There are a number of other possibilities. It is hypocritical, to use a polite word, to hear Deputies from the Opposition, particularly their leader and spokesperson on finance, giving us daily lectures about being a tax and spend Government and the need to control expenditure while at the same time Opposition Deputies are now asking for an extra £40 million. It would be a help if there was consistency from that side of the House.
What is the total amount the Minister will be able to provide for REPS payments in 1996? With regard to payments under the scheme, will his commitments in the charter of rights be fully adhered to for all participants for the year so that we do not have the situation which exists at present in the case of CFP grants whereby farmers will not be paid until 1997? What will the Minister do to increase the number of REPS planners? It appears at the moment to be a closed shop.
I have provided an extra £12 million and identified the source from which additional revenues will be available. If further moneys are required, the situation will be reviewed. I cannot foresee the exact total demand. There is no doubt that demand for the scheme is increasing and, because of the budgetary measures we have introduced, it will increase further.
The numbers of private and Teagasc planners show that there is no shortage of people to approve plans and the original teething problems have been resolved. If the Deputy brings problems in particular areas to my attention I will have them investigated.
Can the Minister guarantee applicants under the REPS that his commitment under the charter of rights with regard to their payment will be fulfilled in 1996?
That is my intention.
The Minister cannot give that assurance.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
I welcome the changes in the budget with regard to social welfare and those receiving grants under REPS. Given the enormous benefit to the environment from participation in REPS, does the Minister agree that the Government should consider exempting all REPS grants from income tax?
That is a matter for the Minister for Finance. I have discussed it with him and he is of the view that these grants should not be exempt from income tax. We must keep a balance between different schemes. Afforestation grants and premiums are now being outstripped by REPS grants. The former are tax free and making the latter tax free would hinder us in achieving our national forestry targets. I do not see a prospect in the short-term of REPS grants being so exempt. There is a principle at issue here. All other premium and headage payments are liable for tax. In fairness to the rest of the community all income, from whatever source, should be liable for tax.
There has been obfuscation on this issue and we should get down to brass tacks. The purpose of question time is to obtain information, not to listen to vague policy aspirations as to how the Minister will solve his problems. Can the Minister confirm that the allocation for 1996 is £41.5 million, that there were 9,200 applicants for the scheme last year and that the average payment last year was £3,500 to those 9,200 applicants, giving a total payment of £30 million? Can he confirm that the number of new applicants envisaged by his Department for 1996, in addition to the 9,200 applicants in 1995, is 12,500? This has been stated by the Minister of State. The question I ask is simple. Of the £41.5 million allocation for 1996, £30 million is already committed as a second payment to 1995 applicants. Will the Minister confirm that £6 million has been already paid out in 1996, leaving a total of £5.5 million remaining in the scheme as of now. Will he confirm also that in the event of him not getting any additional funds for the REPS in 1996, based on present financial allocations he will run out of money within the next two months? That being true, was the Minister also making the tea with the Taoiseach when he was doing the budget allocations, as portrayed in Martyn Turner's cartoon recently?
I appreciate the Deputy is trying to be helpful.
A little clarity is all we want.
Most of his questions relate to statistical material and I am happy to provide him with that.
The questions do not relate to statistical material but to facts available to the Minister. He should give the facts and stop messing around.
When I became Minister the total number of REPS applicants was 350 by the end of 1995.
Was that a question I asked?
Answer the question.
Let us await the Minister's reply.
I intend to deal with all the Deputy's questions.
On a point of order, I have asked specific questions. If the Minister wishes me to accept he had problems in the past or that he has introduced some modifications which have improved the scheme, I will accept that.
Let us await the Minister's response, Deputy.
I am simply asking him now, on behalf of 12,500 applicants for this scheme, whether they will be paid this year. It is a simple question.
By the end of 1995 8,500 REPS payments were approved for new participants. The cost of the scheme was £29.6 million with an average payment of approximately £3,500. Second and third year payments will be due in 1996 to approximately 8,850 participants and these commitments will account for approximately £30 million. Over £6.75 million has been approved for payment in 1996 so far.
Before the Minister goes any further, how much money will be left?
The number of new participants might be 14,400 or perhaps 7,500, I cannot say definitively. A number of factors would leave one to think that we may be peaking now.
Finish the sum.
The final figure is somewhere between the two I have mentioned.
How much has the Minister left for those people?
Let us hear the Minister's reply.
£5.5 million?
The question of additional funding for REPS has to be considered. Additional funding will have to be found for REPS. I have no difficulty indicating that extra funds have to be provided.
So the Minister does not have enough at the moment. He should have said that the first time.
These interruptions are disorderly.
I tried to answer other questions.
I am grateful to the Minister for that admission.
Discussions are taking place today between my Department officials and the IVU which may or may not result in finalisation of the TB scheme which would inevitably mean that the gross funding provided for that scheme would not be required in my gross Estimate. That would raise the possibility of seeking funds which could be transferred to REPS.
Does that mean the Minister will transfer those funds?
There are other possibilities in relation to the amount of money provided for different subheads in my Department which I do not want to specify because we are not yet through the first month of this financial year. I assure the Deputy that I and the Government are committed to the REPS. We see it as a useful direct income to farmers and there will not be a lack of political priority or commitment in ensuring the maintenance of the scheme.
I compliment the Minister and understand the frustrations on the opposite side of the House, but we were tolerant when those Members were speaking.
I have the answer to my question.
It is frustrating for the Deputies opposite because they cannot find chinks in the Minister's armour. I compliment the Minister on the £2,000 exemption for small farmers applying for unemployment assistance. In response to Deputy Cowen's remarks about funding the REPS, I am sure the Minister will be just as innovative in that regard as he was in the control of the farmyard pollution scheme.
Deputy Finucane referred to the exemption regarding unemployment assistance. I hope the same consideration will be given in respect of medical cards, which is the same principle. Despite the Minister's customer friendly approach and the Department's transparent policy, there are delays in the payment of REPS grants and it appears there will be major delays in the future if the Minister cannot come up with the funding. In that respect, why has the Department decided to inspect 5 per cent of all the REPS plans lodged with the department, causing further delays in payments of grants to farmers?
That is a separate question but specific commitments are set out in the charter. Both EU auditors and others have asked us to carry out an evaluation of certain aspects of all our schemes. That applies to REPS and is partly the basis for such inspections.
Is it true that the administration of the REPS is virtually self-financing given the fees paid by farmers? If that is so, will the Minister allow Teagasc to recruit new staff? A promise was made that "new blood" would be provided to fill the vacancies being created by people who retire or who are out of work through illness.
I agree that all aspects of REPS are self-financing. It is estimated that for every gross pound spent under REPS, 22 per cent of it is absorbed in direct and indirect taxation. If we are funding only 25 per cent of it, it is an exceptional deal for the Exchequer. My understanding is that the problem in relation to REPS planners for Teagasc has been already sorted out and it is in the process of recruiting some of those staff.
I am grateful to the Minister for acknowledging that he requires extra funds at this stage if every applicant for a REPS grant in 1996 is to be paid in 1996. Progress has been made on Question Time to have at least gleaned that from all the questions that have been asked. In response to Deputy Finucane, I hope the Minister is even more innovative than he was in the control of the farmyard pollution scheme because that scheme——
The question is too long. I must move on.
——has ended. I am sure the Minister and Deputy Finucane are aware that scheme ended in June of 1995 and the rate of grant payment is less than 13 per cent with 18,451 applicants as of 30 November, 2,300 of whom have been paid. Is the Minister in a position at this stage to give a commitment to the payment of REPS grants to all 1996 applicants from the re-allocation of resources in his Department, or will he have to seek further allocations from the Minister for Finance? Will he be able to make up the £40 million shortfall from his Department?
There is no mystery about what I revealed. As Deputy Byrne will confirm, I spoke on "Agriview" in relation to the budget and said I was seeking extra money for REPS. My concerns are not a secret. I can count in terms of the number of applicants and the average payment. It is not a matter of obfuscation and Deputy Cowen should not try to attribute some sort of Hercule Poirot nature to himself in discovering this fact because it was as plain as day that there was a shortfall in funding.
The Minister is not often a purveyor of bad news.
The Deputy is being less than charitable. I was faced with having £3.6 million this year for CFP, but we have adequate funds to ensure that all 18,600 applicants can proceed. Whether it is that scheme or the dairy hygiene scheme once the approval is issued it is a matter for the farmer to carry out the work so that payment can be made and blame for those delays cannot be laid at my door.
When will those payments be made? Deputy Finucane made one faux pas and he should not make another.
Deputy Finucane need not worry because he is in the frame.
All that is worrying Deputy Cowen is that he is out of the frame.
Deputy Leonard does not have that sense of insecurity.