Jimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment. As I understand it, letters rejecting REPS 4 applications were issued today to a number of farmers across the country, an issue about which there is currently much consternation. I have a particular interest in the REPS scheme given my involvement in 1995 in the roll-out of the REPS 1 scheme. I recall that over a period of two and a half years approximately 46,000 farmers registered as REPS farmers. I have always considered it to be an innovative and creative scheme that does a great deal to protect our environment. Farmers are the greatest custodians of our environment.

REPS 4 was launched in August 2007 but did not really get up and running until January 2008 owing to operational problems with the eREPS system, a computer package for the compilation of plans introduced as a result of the nitrates directive. An information day for planners in September 2007 merely scratched the surface with regard to the workings of the scheme. While terms and conditions and planner specifications were available at the time, they raised more questions than anything else. In hindsight, these should have been vigorously analysed, but owing to time constraints that was not possible. Insufficient information on the scheme was provided by the Department to planners and farmers at that particular time.

New applicants to the scheme were required to have their plans drawn up and submitted prior to 15 May 2008. Huge volumes of plans had to be submitted in a short space of time which, in turn, put huge pressure on planners and farmers to have work completed before this deadline. Planners claim that in the period up to 15 May 2008 they received little guidance, assistance and clarification from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in regard to drawing up REPS 4 plans. I do not know if this is true but the planners with whom I have been in contact on behalf of farmers all point to the vagueness and misinformation from day one in terms of how the scheme was presented. Also, it appeared to them at that time that there was a great deal of confusion within the Department on how to answer REPS planner questions about the scheme.

Late in 2008, farmers received letters confirming that their REPS plans had been received by the Department and were being processed. Once plans were being processed from May to December 2008, planners received letters from the Department seeking extra information, minor adjustments and clarification on some issues in the plans, which is normal procedure. These changes were in most cases promptly made. There was no mention at that time of major issues arising with measures 2 and 4 within the plans. I draw the Minister of State's attention to measure 2 which relates to grassland management, which is quite simple to represent on a plan and measure 4 which relates to habitats. Totally misguided information in respect of these two measures was issued to planners. Farmers received letters stating: "The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food hereby accepts your agri-environmental plan and admits your application subject to the Scheme terms and conditions, and to the provisions of Council Regulations 1698/05." The letter also provided information on when plans commenced, the contract area, how many months and how much they would be paid for in 2008 and how much they would receive for a full calendar year within REPS 4. There was then a time lag between these letters and the next step.

Rumours started to circulate in January 2009 that many of these plans would be rejected or at the very least that a penalty would be imposed on them. Planners were kept in the dark with regard to these procedures and are now being unfairly scapegoated for the whole problem. Many farmers have already missed out on two years of REPS and if plans are rejected they will miss out on another. Farmers simply cannot survive without this direct payment which is the only element of guaranteed income from single farm payments.

Today, farmers across the country received letters in regard to rejection of their plans, an issue about which I am sure all Members will be hearing tomorrow. This is unfair. I am sure the Minister of State will in response to this matter read out the standard reply from the Department. REPS 4 plans should not be rejected. They should be returned to planners for amendment and updating. Also, the Minister of State or his Department officials should explain these measures to planners and advise them in regard to what they must do. This is the least that could be done at this stage for a community under a great deal of pressure to survive until next year.

See this speech in context