I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 29 together.
In the context of the 1992 CAP Reform package, Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3508/92 established an integrated administration and control system in relation to livestock and arable aid schemes financed partly or totally by the EU. Articles 2, 4 and 13 of that regulation obliged each member state to put in place by 1 January 1996 an "alphanumeric identification system for agricultural parcels". The purpose of this is to provide a database whereby each land parcel being declared as forage area or for arable aid can be quickly identified by way of a unique land parcel number; can be located on maps on which its boundaries are drawn; can have the area declared by the applicant cross-checked against the gross area assigned in the database to that parcel; and can be cross-checked also to ensure that part or all of that land parcel is not being declared by any other farmer in the same year.
This country was obliged, therefore, to undertake a project to put such an identification system for land parcels in place in time for the issue of the 1996 area aid applications. This project was enormous and complex and involved processing over 250,000 area aid applications and 400,000 maps submitted by farmers in 1994 and 1995; transforming the details of a million plots shown on those maps into land parcels drawn against the background of 24,000 Ordnance Survey map sheets; attributing a new unique land parcel number and gross area to each land parcel so created and printing over 400,000 maps for issue to farmers this year.
The time-scale for completing such a large and complex project was remarkably short — from July 1995 to April 1996. It has been undertaken on foot of guidance received from the EU Commission and with the advice at each stage of a consultancy firm with expertise in the area of digitising maps. That so much has been achieved in such a short time is remarkable. That there are some problems relating to what has been achieved within that time-span is not at all surprising.
Having set out the background, I will now deal with the specific questions asked by the Deputies. I will take the issue of the closing date for the receipt of 1996 area aid applications first. The closing date of 30 April 1996 is set out on the front of each application form; in each accompanying helpsheet; in each accompanying set of terms and conditions; and in recent advertisements in the farming and local press.
In case any farmer finds it difficult to meet that deadline, however, the Minister has taken two measures to ease the situation. First, he has arranged for the insertion of a further advertisement in this week's Irish Farmers' Journal and Farm Examiner in which the following relatively simple message to each intending applicant is set out:
Ensure that your area aid application reaches the area aid unit of the Department on or before Tuesday, 30 April 1996 whether or not it is accompanied by any maps you need to complete for 1996. We will accept that application provided you forward any maps needed as soon as possible after 30 April. I would hope that this will enable applicants to lodge their applications on or before 30 April 1996 regardless of any problems they may have with their maps.
Second, in view of the industrial action by the Civil and Public Services Union which is disrupting work within the Department in relation to 1996 area aid applications, he has directed the Department to seek from the EU Commission an extension of the closing date for receipt of 1996 area aid applications to 15 May 1996, the last date allowed by the relevant EU Regulations. As Ireland had already obtained an extension to 30 April 1996 from the normal closing date of 31 March, it is by no means certain that the Commission will agree to this request for a further extension. Nevertheless, we shall be making the point that the circumstances we find ourselves in as a result of that industrial action are so exceptional that it is vital that the extension now being requested be given for the sake of both our farmers and the efficient administration of the 1996 area aid applications.
The next issue I will address is the matter of the alleged confusion and disorganisation in regard to the issue of 1996 area aid documentation. Undoubtedly what has issued is not perfect. It could not be in the circumstances. The extent to which there are complaints should be seen in the following context. What issued for 1996 is based on what farmers sent in for earlier years. If there were errors or omissions in what some farmers sent in during those years, then I am afraid what has been sent out to the same farmers this year will mirror exactly those errors and omissions. A quality control sampling exercise carried out by the Department during the last week on what issued to farmers this year has confirmed that the vast majority of maps issued to farmers this year reflected precisely what was on the maps received originally from the farmers to whom those maps issued. Human nature being what it is, most of the farmers who receive maps with which they are satisfied are not likely to tell us so. Only those who are unhappy with their maps will bring the matter to our attention. Thus, the overall picture is distorted because a minority have problems. Furthermore, in this context, I can confirm that all maps due to issue to farmers will have issued this week.
Of course, those farmers who receive documentation which causes them problems in completing their 1996 area aid applications are entitled to complain if the fault is not theirs and to seek help which will enable them to complete their applications on time. It was precisely because the Minister anticipated a certain number of problem cases in 1996 that he put in place this year a freephone area aid advice service in the Departments area aid unit, arranged for staff in the Department's local offices to deal with 1996 area aid inquiries at a local level and arranged close liaison with Teagasc so that it could offer farmers any advice needed towards completing their area aid applications accurately and in time. It is all the more regrettable, therefore, that the CPSU's industrial action has resulted in the freephone service being suspended and in over 80 per cent of the staff in both the area aid unit itself and our local offices not dealing with queries relating to the 1996 area aid applications.
That is why he has asked the Department to intensify its liaison with Teagasc so that Teagasc can offer its normal advice service in this area as effectively as possible, why he has told farmers they can submit their applications by 30 April without any maps if necessary and why he has sought an extension to the 30 April closing date. It is also the reason he will take any further steps that appear necessary to him in the light of ongoing developments so that farmers will not have their 1996 livestock or arable aid payments delayed or endangered.
Finally, there is the question of the contract for digitising maps. As I have explained already, Ireland, in common with all other member states, was obliged to undertake this by the relevant EU Regulations. The expertise for such a project was, however, not available within the Department or, indeed, within Ordnance Survey. Because of that, tenders were sought from outside contractors by way of advertisement in the EU's Official Journal in accordance with usual practice. The tenders received were assessed in the normal way and the least costly tender accepted after consultation with the Department of Finance and the EU Commission and after independent consultants had vouched for the technical capacity of the contractor involved. The overall cost of the contract at present is of the order of about £8 million, close to 25 per cent of which is payable not to the main contractor but to Ordnance Survey for map royalties and photographic services. Given the fact that livestock and arable aid payments amount to about £650 million a year at present and that the benefits of this contracted expenditure will stretch over the next five to 10 years, the contract amount of just over 1 per cent of one year's total benefit under these schemes is not excessive.
