Jimmy Deenihan
Ceist:14 Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development when the new REPs will be introduced; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17436/00]
Other Questions. - Rural Environment Protection Scheme.
Ireland's CAP rural development plan for the period 2000-06 was submitted to the European Commission at the end of December 1999. This plan covers REPs along with early retirement, compensatory allowances and forestry.
Negotiations with the Commission are taking place on the plan as a whole, and the entire plan will have to be approved before any of the four individual measures can commence. These negotiations are now in their final stage. Once they are complete, however, there is a standard formal procedure for approval of all plans that has to take place and by its nature this exercise involves a considerable amount of detail and documentation. It is my objective to ensure that approval is forthcoming in the shortest possible time but it is too early at this stage to give any concrete dates for the likely commencement of the new rural environmental protection scheme.
A large number of first time applicants have been waiting to make an application for some time. As a result of the fall in cattle numbers because of higher milk yield, more farmers will qualify than was the case under the first REPs. The decline in farming incomes makes REPs very important in sustaining family farms. Will the Minister tell the House when the new rural environmental protection scheme will be introduced? Has there been an evaluation of the first scheme, particularly its benefits for the environment?
The rural environmental protection scheme is a good scheme. Ireland has the highest per capita availability of this scheme in the EU, with 45,000 participating. In excess of £200 million per annum has been earmarked for expenditure on the new scheme.
We made our application in December 1999. We have been continuously in communication with the European Commission since then and we are now at the final stage. If that was the end of it, the situation would be satisfactory because we could get going. The overall scheme, however, including forestry and early retirement, has to be approved. I can only tell the House that we are making every possible effort to expedite the scheme.
It is a good scheme which supports farm incomes. An evaluation was carried out which outlined its importance, especially for sheep farmers, and I will forward it to Deputy Deenihan. It puts additional cash flow into the disadvantaged areas of the State, and will continue to do so with £200 million per annum earmarked until 2006.
In the proposals the Minister put to Brussels, were there harsher penalties for farmers who are not compliant with the scheme?
Penalties are the subject of the next question. We propose to halve the current level of compliance inspections from 50% to 25%. We want the scheme to run as smoothly as possible with the minimum level of penalties consistent with farmers complying with the obligations of the scheme. Anyone travelling in rural areas will see the effect it has had over the past ten years.
Is the proposal to halve the number of inspections and increase the number of penalties a quid pro quo? That would be unfair. The penalties are disproportionate and should not be increased.
Many of the penalties relate to relatively simple matters such as late applications. I am proposing that the penalty of 50% for underdeclaration of land and other penalties relating to fairly routine matters will be abolished. Penalties should only apply where deliberately fraudulent applications are made. We are addressing the matter of abolishing the penalties which obtain in respect of innocent errors.
That concludes questions for today.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.