Vol. 553 No. 4
9 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the 2002 Estimates for public capital spending by his Department; if the net expenditure under headings is likely on present trends to be exceeded; and if so, the amount by which in each case. [14042/02]
The total provision for public capital spending by my Department amounts to €151.113 million gross, and €115.409 million net, under various headings. It is too early in the year to be definitive, but at this stage I anticipate excesses on some headings and savings on others.
Bearing in mind that all figures are indicative at this stage, the following are the likely excesses. Under subhead A5 – office equipment – an additional €900,000 will be required for networking costs associated with the relocation of part of the Department to Maynooth, software licences and upgrading of computer systems, as part of the Department's ongoing modernisation programme.
Under subhead C6 – national beef assurance scheme – an excess of €2.5 million is anticipated in 2002, principally in relation to the expenditure on the animal health computer system which was delayed last year due to the foot and mouth emergency. Under subhead M1 – farm investment – expenditure is likely to be some €3 mill ion higher than estimated for the remaining grants under the national scheme for the control of farm pollution, for which Commission approval was received late last year.
Savings on other capital expenditure subheads will counterbalance these projected excesses.
Is the Minister in a position to inform the House of the areas where there will be a shortfall in expenditure? Is there any indication of where the payment for the national beef assurance scheme will originate?
It is too early in the year to be definitive about any area. There was a delay in the start-up of a number of schemes last year because the precautions against foot and mouth prevented inspectors from visiting farms. I am pleased that the national scheme for farm pollution will have in excess of €3 million. The scheme is going very well.
I stated in the House that I wished the national beef assurance scheme to be of minimal cost to farmers. It is very important that a country which has a 90% dependence on export markets has that statutory beef assurance. To date, it is regrettable that there has not been agreement between the farmers or the veterinary association with the Department for the implementation of that scheme. Our beef industry is far too important to be quibbled about. I call on the various farming and veterinary associations to come terms with that scheme.
Has the Minister the wherewithal within his Estimates to provide funding for an aid package for those who have been severely affected by the weather, such as the fruit growers in Wexford and the cereal growers in north Dublin or would he be forced to go to the EU or to the Minister for Finance?
It is my intention to raise the matter of the adverse weather at the EU meeting next week. I requested that this item be put on the agenda for the meeting but I am not sure if it will be. It is very difficult to acquire EU support for weather-related problems but I am aware that we have a serious problem and I am seeking to address it on a number of fronts. I have asked Teagasc to provide the best possible help and advice to farmers in this difficult and adverse situation. The greatest contribution of all to the problem would be an improvement in the weather.
I hope that the Minister will not forget the farmers in the midlands who have been flooded out when he goes to Brussels. In light of the comments the Minister made in reply to Question No. 8 regarding climate change, will he inform the House whether the targets in relation to a research and development fund in the Department will be met? Will he ensure that funding will be set aside for the study of alterna tive production of cash crops such as rapeseed oil in order to cope with climate change?
I ask the Minister for clarification about the national beef assurance scheme. I understand a commitment was given that there will be no cost to farmers. Is that correct?
Regarding Deputy Naughten's question, there is adequate support for research and development in the areas concerned. This is an ongoing matter which is very important in view of the changed climatic conditions and we need improvement in varieties and improved yields as a result. There is adequate finance for that subhead.
In relation to the national beef assurance scheme, I said there would be minimal cost. There is no such thing as a free lunch of any description but if a veterinary surgeon calls out to a farmer in an annual round test, examines the farm and signs off on the national beef assurance, that should not cost much.
