Vol. 462 No. 4
5 Mr. H. Byrne asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the number of applicants who will be paid for the REP scheme in 1996 in view of the previous statement made by him and the Minister of State at his Department. [4769/96]
Current projections are that more than 20,000 applicants will have been accepted into REPS and received payment by the end of 1996. I am keeping the funding of REPS under close review with a view to ensuring that sufficient funds are available to meet the expected demand. I can assure the Deputy that the scheme will be funded adequately.
I am interested in the Minister's reply because in my estimation it would cost approximately £80 million to accommodate the present level of applications. I understand only £40 million has been provided for the scheme in 1996. I know the goal posts have been changed slightly, perhaps to allow each applicant receive a small amount, but will the Minister accept that the scheme has failed?
No. I assure the Deputy that we attach great importance to this scheme. We see it as a real money-spinner for many farm families, particularly those in the dry stock sector. Of all the prevailing direct income schemes, I am more optimistic about this scheme getting support from Brussels than I am of renewal of Structural Funds. If the Deputy is referring to the recent announcement by the Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan, who has responsibility for the REPS, problems have arisen, unfortunately, in regard to an audit of 5 per cent of cases approved. We gave desk top approvals to REPS applicants and, given earlier difficulties with regard to the beef industry, I am determined to ensure that any successor of mine is not left with a legacy of disallowances and maladministration because of inadequate staff levels to deal with a torrent of applications — approximately 300 per week.
I have asked my officials to, first, put in place immediate measures to check up on faulty plans, some of which involved technical breaches of the scheme — and that is a generous term — and, second, to ensure that in the lifetime of every plan there is proper compliance and checking, including farm inspections. That probably means I will have to bring to Cabinet a dossier on funding, staffing and adequate measures to put in place a more foolproof checking system. I am working closely with the Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan, and my colleagues to ensure that this scheme can progress and be successful. I do not deny there is a shortfall in funding. I did not deny it the last time I answered questions in the House, but I assure the Deputy I do not see any legal basis for the suspension of the scheme. I have a strong case to put to Cabinet to ensure adequate funding on the three to one basis involving only 25 per cent from the Exchequer.
The Minister has a strong case and I hope he is successful in his attempts to put it forward. Will the Minister agree that many people, such as CFP applicants, were fooled into thinking they would be considered for the scheme? I agree with the Minister that every case should be fully monitored but that should not be used as an excuse not to pay people. There must be balance. Why does the Government spend hundreds of millions of pounds on remedial action involving a general environmental clean-up when the Minister cannot obtain an additional £10 million, which would be further supplemented by £30 million from the EU? As the Minister said, endless amounts of money seem to be available from Europe for this worth-while scheme.
The Deputy has made the point about the requirement for funding. The measures taken on fraud, strictness and checking are entirely separate and the Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan, is dealing with that. It is my responsibility to discuss with the Minister for Finance the effectiveness of this scheme and ensure adequate resources are made available. Given that the broad rule of thumb is that for every State scheme which puts money into people's pockets, approximately 22 per cent of that money comes back in taxation, and given that 75 per cent of this scheme is funded from Europe, there is a cost effective, economic case to be made in regard to it. The money has not run out. There is no need for panic and, at the appropriate time, the Government will address the funding issue.
Will the Minister control his public relations machine in the interests of reality? Why was it necessary for the Minister to change the goal posts in regard to payments? I am not referring to the need for monitoring, with which I agree. Did the Minister fail to get the money at Cabinet even though he had a better case for funding than some of his other colleagues in Government? Will the Minister give an assurance that the 12,000 to 14,000 REPS applicants in 1996 will be paid in 1996 if they are eligible?
I will outline the sequence of events for the Deputy. A check was carried out on 5 per cent of applicants and almost half were found to be ineligible. They may have used a neighbour's farm or taken out land 100 miles away. Serious breaches of the scheme occurred in addition to technical breaches. If we were to ignore those findings and continue to give approvals, we would inevitably face disallowance in the future. The problem had to be nipped in the bud. I was then told that if I wanted to prove the validity of every plan, there would not be any more approvals this year, and all 11,000 applications would be held up. That was not acceptable to me so, rather than advancing full payment, on average approximately £3,550, I decided to give half the payment on the date of approval with the other half to be paid six months later, during which time additional checking could be done. People would not be at the loss of any money and it would allow the scheme to continue while putting in place a proper checking system.
On a point of order, we have spent 50 minutes dealing with five questions. Question No. 15 in my name deals with an issue of importance to 100 factory workers. Those of us lucky enough to have our question taken occasionally are consistently denied the opportunity to ask supplementaries.
Carlow-Kilkenny): On that basis we will proceed to Question No. 6.
