Vol. 573 No. 4
116 Mr. S. Ryan asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if it is the case, as reported recently in a publication (details supplied), that his Department has been told to cut spending in 2004 by ?70 million; if so, the areas in which these cutbacks will be made; the services which will suf fer as a result; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25588/03]
The annual Estimates process, which involves discussion between each Department and the Department of Finance on allocations for 2004, has been taking place over the past few months. The process involves the examination of various options in the light of the expected Exchequer position and competing demands for limited funds. The first stage of the Estimates and budget process for 2004 will be completed shortly with the publication of the 2004 Abridged Estimates volume next week, on 13 November 2003. Pending its publication, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on my Department's programme of activities for 2004.
As the Minister's reply does not give me much ammunition with which to find out what cuts are likely, I will highlight some of the cuts which took place last year. Teagasc, Bord Glais, Bord Bia, the REP scheme and other bodies were badly hit in last year's budget, with funding for Teagasc cut by 13%, and funding for Bord Glais, Bord Bia and the REP scheme cut by 32%, 13% and 19%, respectively. The amalgamation of Bord Bia and Bord Glais has also been recommended. What plans does the Minister have to ensure that these agencies do not suffer disproportionately again?
This question was tabled as a result of a speculative article on the Estimates which appeared in the Irish Farmers' Journal. The Estimates campaign is a difficult one, particularly in a tight budgetary position. It will not be my fault if the Department does not receive a reasonable allocation for the coming year.
Whose fault will it be?
Who is the real Minister?
All will be revealed on 13 November and subsequently in the budget in which some tidying up can be done. While funding for Teagasc was cut last year and the organisation underwent some streamlining, its services were not affected and it continued to do a tremendous job, especially in regard to the information meetings for the mid-term review. Bord Bia and Bord Glais also tightened up their operations.
The REP scheme receives a substantial allocation each year. In the past two years, however, its allocation has not been used in full and had to be redistributed because an insufficient number of farmers applied to the scheme. We have tried to simplify REPS, introduced computerisation and in every way sought to encourage farmers into the scheme. Teagasc provides independent planners and farmers can get from €5,500 per annum up to over €12,000 per annum if they are involved in the organic REPS. To date, however, we have found it extremely difficult to get farm ers to apply to participate in this worthwhile scheme.
Due to a requirement under the mid-term review with respect to adherence to certain cross-compliance measures that will be introduced by various EU directives, does the Minister believe he will have to put more funding into on-farm investment in pollution control and so forth? According to a recent article in one of the newspapers, one of the Teagasc personnel said that farmers would have to become minders of bats. Will there be funding available to assist farmers in controlling bats, however that might be done?
My objective is to ensure that we have the most efficient, competent and professional farming operation in Ireland so it can compete in a more competitive environment both in Europe and in the international market. Furthermore, the objective is to ensure that farming is carried out with the highest consideration for the environment. I have published codes of good farming practice and encouraged farmers to participate in the rural environment protection scheme. It is a disappointment that more farmers are not involved. The number currently involved is approximately 35,000 and it is my ambition to double it.
There is a substantial annual income available but we want a return for that in terms of better farming practices, better regard for the environment and the elimination of pollution. The wanton pollution of our rivers and streams is to be deplored. There are improvements but I want more. If substantial amounts of money are paid out each year, we want a return for it through better farming practice that is in harmony with a better environment.
