Vol. 665 No. 3
1 Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of an estimated 92% of farmers who are over the age of 35, he will introduce measures to address the increasingly mature age profile of Irish farmers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37773/08]
Data from the CSO's Farm Structures Survey 2005 estimated that 8% of farm holders were under the age of 35. This figure is in line with the EU average and reflects the broad range of incentives in place to encourage the early transfer of family farms. These incentives include extensive tax reliefs that allow for family farms to be transferred without incurring stamp duty, capital gains tax and capital acquisitions tax.
I point out that stamp duty relief, which is specifically aimed at young farmers under the age of 35 who have attained certain agricultural qualifications, has been renewed in budget 2009 for four years until 31 December 2012. This is a very valuable relief that focuses on young farmers who are committed to pursuing a career in farming, and its renewal for a full four-year period reflects this Government's commitment to these farmers and their desire to enter the industry.
Stamp duty relief together with capital acquisitions tax (agricultural relief) and capital gains tax (retirement relief) ensures the majority of early farm transfers are exempt from tax. Several adjustments were made in the Finance Act 2007 to help overcome technical issues such as an adjustment to capital acquisition tax (agricultural relief) to allow for outstanding borrowings on an off-farm principal private residence when determining whether the recipient is eligible for agricultural relief.
Full capital gains tax (retirement relief) is available on disposals to family members, while relief is available on disposals to third parties up to the value of €750,000 and marginal relief on disposals above this threshold. An adjustment in the Finance Act 2007 allows farmers who had their farmland leased out prior to its disposal to a child to avail of capital gains tax (retirement relief), subject to certain conditions.
The 100% rate of stock relief for young farmers was also renewed in this year's budget for two years until 31 December 2010. This scheme is focused on new entrants who are building up the value of their herds.
In addition to the above measures, which are specifically aimed at new entrants, there are several other major incentives aimed at encouraging greater levels of land mobility. These include an income tax exemption for rental income received from the long-term lease of farmland. The substantial rental income exemptions are €12,000 on leases between five to seven years, €15,000 on leases between seven and ten years and €20,000 on leases over ten years.
Stamp duty relief for farm consolidation was renewed in budget 2009 for two years until 30 June 2011. It is available where a farmer is consolidating his or her holding through the purchase and sale of a parcel or parcels of land, subject to conditions set out in farm consolidation guidelines. This encourages farmers to swap land parcels to decrease the level of farm fragmentation and increase economic efficiency.
All these measures combined with the reduction in the top rate of stamp duty for agricultural land from 9% to 6% should help improve mobility of agricultural land and are substantial in reducing the set-up cost for young farmers. This extensive range of measures helps to improve the age profile of farming through early farm transfer or by encouraging greater levels of leasing, land swaps or farm consolidation allowing younger, more productive farmers to enter the industry.
The Minister's decision to withdraw installation aid and the early retirement scheme is disgraceful. He accepts that 8% of farm holders under the age of 35 is an acceptable EU norm at a time when large global challenges face farming. Nearly 50% of the farm-owning population are of an age to qualify for the early retirement scheme.
I will give the Minister a word of warning. The Minister is going to Tullamore this evening to talk about the sheep industry. While I accept the sheep industry is in crisis, if he were to attempt to create a nest egg to fund another pet scheme by robbing Peter to pay Paul, farmers will not stand for it.
Will the Minister accept that in the absence of installation aid and the early retirement scheme, the availability of the stamp duty relief on the transfer of family farms will be irrelevant? The number of farmers availing of the stamp duty exemption will come to a standstill. Without installation aid and the early retirement scheme, the stamp duty exemption is useless. These schemes comprised a three-pronged attack to address the age profile issue in farming. In one fell swoop the removal of these two schemes will undermine the effort to get younger people into agriculture.
We are not robbing Peter to pay Paul. Resources available to the Department are being allocated. Next year, in excess of €9 million will be paid out in new installation aid scheme approvals. Those are applications that are in hand at present and will be processed and approved in 2009. Up to €48 million will be paid out under the early retirement scheme. The position is that both schemes have been suspended for new applicants. I have stated clearly in meetings with Deputies from all parties and the farming organisations that we will be reviewing the suspension of both schemes when financial resources allow us to do so.
Those young people whose parents may have been transferring the farm had legitimate expectation, to use legal terminology. What about those cases where a young person enrols this year at agricultural college to do a green certificate or the case of a farmer with a lease signed but waiting for the Revenue to stamp it? Notwithstanding the Minister's budget day announcement of the suspension of the two schemes, will applicants who have legitimate expectation be accommodated? Has the Minister taken legal advice from the Attorney General on this matter?
The decision to suspend both schemes to new applicants was due to budgetary constraints. I have already indicated that those people who have had their completed applications with the Department — there are approximately 600 — will be processed. When they meet the necessary criteria and are approved, funding is in place——
The Minister is avoiding the issue and the question. It is not about the applications already in but the people who have legitimate expectations. I am asking about those people, who through no fault of their own, were waiting for leases to be stamped by Revenue or are completing a green certificate at agricultural college and believed they could avail of the scheme.
I have outlined clearly that both schemes are suspended for new applicants. The limiting of the suspension of the schemes will be considered at the earliest opportunity but with regard to the current budgetary constraints. In 2009 in excess of €9 million will be allocated and approved for the young farmer installation aid scheme and €48 million will be paid out in the early retirement scheme.
The Minister is avoiding the issue.
We will move to Question No. 2 in the name of Deputy Seán Sherlock.
I will get the same answer that Deputy Michael Creed got.
It will be a shorter one.
It will probably be more relevant.
The last question was relevant. If the Deputy wants to dismiss——
With all due respect, it was not very relevant. It was cold comfort to people who were hoping to avail of the schemes.
Deputy Creed, please allow Deputy Sherlock's question to be answered.
2 Deputy Seán Sherlock asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will reverse the decision to cut €10 million from the early retirement scheme and installation aid scheme which have been shut down to new applicants; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37719/08]
Against the background of the deterioration in public finances, my approach in preparing the 2009 Estimates for the Department was to focus available resources on the measures that allow us to maintain and grow the productive capacity of the agrifood sector.
There has been a high level of investment in developing this sector in recent years, with the commitment of significant financial resources to areas such as the rural environment scheme, where the rates of grant had been increased by 17%, the new suckler cow scheme and the farm waste management scheme. Expenditure for the farm waste management scheme in 2008 will exceed €375 million following the recent provision of an additional €195 million. The first payments under the new suckler cow scheme will issue later this year.
As I have chosen to protect expenditure in certain areas, expenditure in other areas has to be curtailed. I have made provision of €56.7 million to meet current commitments in the early retirement from farming and the young farmers' installation aid scheme. This level of funding means that, for the present, new applications for these schemes are suspended.
It is clear from the earlier reply to Deputy Michael Creed that the Minister will not budge on this issue. Today, a recently widowed lady contacted me whose son wishes to take over the family farm holding. He would have been an ideal applicant for these two schemes. However, as they were going through a process of grant of probate, he was not in a position to send his application before 14 October. The legal instrument went against him and took longer than anticipated. Will the Minister allow for some degree of discretion and fairness for those who were in the process of applying? On 14 October the two schemes were cut down in one fell swoop without any notice period. That did not allow individuals, such as those I have just mentioned, to have some fairness in submitting their applications. If they had some notice, they might have come into the scheme. Cutting the schemes off on 14 October was the wrong way to go about it. Will the Minister revisit his decisions for the sake of equity and fairness?
Like Deputy Sherlock, I have spoken to people who were in the process of preparing their applications, whether under the early retirement scheme or the young farmers' installation scheme, and I know of the disappointment and the break in planning for handing on the farm to the next generation that results. There is never an easy time to suspend or, as has happened in the past, to abolish schemes. This is a suspension of the scheme. When speaking to public representatives, farm organisations and individual farmers I indicated to them that I have asked the Department to bear in mind that when we are in a position to reopen the scheme, the people who had been in the process of preparing applications for submission to the Department should be the first to be processed and considered.
Over the past few months there has been a considerable increase in the number of applications submitted under the young farmers' installation scheme. As Deputy Sherlock knows, there have been a number of early retirement schemes, in the first of which more than 10,000 people participated, while there have been a few thousand participants in the more recent scheme. The figure of €48 million to be paid out next year under the early retirement scheme is significant, as is the €9 million that we have——
Deputy Sherlock for a brief supplementary.
Nobody questions the validity of the scheme or its success. We all agree that Government policy has been sound in this regard. What we are asking for is some degree of discretion. There should be an extension beyond 14 October to allow these people to make their applications. There must be some degree of flexibility on this issue. As has already been said, those people who were on the point of making their applications had a reasonable expectation, because they had gone through the process of applying, that they would be within the timeframe. The Minister has carried out a miserly and mean-spirited act towards those who set out in good faith to participate in the scheme. It is a sad indictment of current Government policy.
I do not accept Deputy Sherlock's contention. I can empathise fully——
The Minister should tell that to the widow I mentioned.
I have spoken to as many people as Deputy Sherlock who are disappointed that the scheme has been suspended for the present. In the past, when the Deputy's own party was in Government, a scheme was suspended even for those whose applications were with the Department. In this scheme, only entry for new applicants has been suspended, and all applicants who have submitted their completed application forms will be processed and approved if they meet the necessary criteria. I do not think anybody has tried, as the previous Deputy did, to dismiss the fact that €65 million has been forgone in taxation measures which are of benefit to young farmers. It is important to put that on the record of the House.
There will be nobody availing of it without the installation aid.
On a point of order——
On a point of order, Deputy Sheahan.
In this scheme, as the Minister has said——
That is not a point of order.
Yes.
This is a priority question and is confined to the Deputies whose names appear on it. Unless the Deputy has a point relating to the order of the House, I must proceed.
With no date for the resumption of this——
That is not a point of order.
The scheme has been put back. The applicants could be 40 years of age by the time the scheme is resumed.
3 Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the nature of an ongoing industrial dispute relating to his Department (details supplied); if this dispute will have an impact on the prompt delivery of REP scheme payments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37774/08]
Agricultural officers in my Department who are members of the IMPACT union commenced industrial action on 6 October. IMPACT alleges that the Department has acted in breach of Towards 2016 by not informing the union in advance of changes in work practices. IMPACT has instructed its members to work to rule; not to undertake overtime; not to undertake tasks or functions associated with posts which have not been filled; not to participate in or co-operate with activities connected to what IMPACT terms "imposed changes"; and not to attend meetings with sectional management. It has also been indicated by IMPACT that other phased action is being planned.
My Department has indicated its readiness to avail of the conciliation and arbitration processes provided for in Towards 2016. However, IMPACT is unwilling to engage in this process, citing the need for additional expertise over and above that available under the conciliation and arbitration scheme. The assistance of the National Implementation Body has been sought on the matter and a meeting will take place tomorrow as a matter of urgency. My Department is also monitoring the effect of the industrial action on the processing of REPS payments and is seeking to ensure prompt delivery of these payments.
I appreciate that an issue as complex as industrial relations will not be resolved on the floor of the House, although I do hope it can be resolved promptly. I seek an assurance from the Minister of State that REPS 4 applicants who applied before 15 May and are now caught in the crossfire will not have their payments delayed unduly.
On a related matter, which probably goes to the heart of the industrial dispute, will the Minister comment on the EU audit inspection of REPS payments in Ireland? Will he confirm to the House that the State is facing a fine which was originally predicted to be €100 million but may be revised downwards to around €60 million? Has budgetary provision been made in the Department this year for such an eventuality?
That is slightly outside the scope of the question.
It is related to the dispute because this issue is at the heart of it.
I will allow the Minister of State to explain, but the information may not be available to him.
It is a complex issue and I am not quite sure it is at the heart of the dispute. There may be other consequences arising from the dispute. In fact, we are dealing with more than 100 schemes here. Obviously, REPS and the farm waste management scheme are two of the highest profile schemes and we do not want to see any delays in these. I am hopeful that resolution of the dispute will ensure that payments under these two schemes in particular, as well as all the other schemes, are issued in a timely manner. This is one of the reasons for the importance of resolving this dispute as quickly as possible. Under EU requirements, no REPS 4 payments can be made until all 11,400 applications submitted in 2008 have been checked. As matters stand, some two thirds of all applications have not yet been processed to finality, and the current action is a major factor in this regard. Hence, the Deputy will agree it is vital that all involved enter into this dialogue in as positive a frame of mind as possible, because we do not want collateral damage arising from this dispute to make life even more difficult than it already is for farmers who are awaiting payments.
The Deputy mentioned REPS compliance inspections. All I can say is that the inspections ceased in 2008 and IMPACT has since sought their reintroduction on the grounds that their discontinuation without prior consultation was a breach of the provisions in Towards 2016. To date, the Department has refused to reintroduce the inspections on the basis that their reintroduction cannot be justified given the findings of the EU auditors. The Deputy could say we are caught in a dilemma as we are trying not to go against the EU auditors while remaining positively disposed to dealing with the grievances that have been articulated. With more than 100 schemes in question, the union's request that it be informed of every change in the manner sought does raise practical issues. We must approach this in a practical manner.
I am alarmed by the Minister's response, which indicated that at this late stage two thirds of REPS 4 applicants have yet to be processed and that this will delay all REPS 4 payments. The Minister needs to recognise the urgency of the situation and to assist in every way possible in bringing about a resolution. Farmers should not be used as a bargaining chip between the trade unions which have a grievance and the Department, which is the employer of the technical agricultural officers.
I ask the Minister again about the EU audit and the fines to be imposed on the State. I cannot accept that the Minister would not have this information available to him, as it is a directly related issue. What provision is in the agriculture Estimate this year for that likely outcome? Will he quantify the amount of the fine?
I reiterate that this matter is being dealt with. The Deputy is right. It is an urgent matter but in working on this draft today the reply has changed in the time since I first saw it. It referred to arranging a meeting as a matter of urgency and now, as I have been able to tell the Deputy, the meeting will take place tomorrow. I understand it will be at 2 p.m. but I ask the Deputy not to hold me to that. It has to happen, and the national inspection body chaired by the Government Secretary General, Dermot McCarthy, is to ensure that meeting goes ahead. The urgency of it is beyond question, and I hope that can be taken as such.
All I can say to the Deputy is that audits take place all the time. The figure he cited is news to me. I am not sure what his source of information is but if it was to be mentioned I would have been given information of that sort. The reply I have read is the reply I have been given.
Will the Minister come back to me with the detail on it?
I will find out if there is missing information.
4 Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food his views on whether the future of the agricultural sector is under threat in some areas of the country, particularly those designated as areas of disadvantage; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37775/08]
The 2009 Estimates provide over €1.8 billion for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and, when combined with EU funding of €1.4 billion, that means that total expenditure in 2009 by the Department will amount to over €3.2 billion.
While difficult decisions had to be taken in light of the situation of the public finances, account also had to be taken of the very high level of investment by the Government in recent years, when significant additional financial resources were committed to areas such as the rural environment scheme, where the rates of grant had been increased by 17% cent, the new suckler cow welfare scheme, the farm waste management scheme, and the 8% increase in rates under the disadvantaged areas scheme introduced last year.
With regard to the 2009 disadvantaged areas scheme, I decided to reduce expenditure for 2009 by reducing the maximum area limit to 34 hectares, which approximates to 84 acres, and by a small increase in the minimum stocking density requirement. While overall expenditure will fall, almost 67,000 farmers will not suffer any reduction in their payments as a result of the introduction of the 34 hectare limit. Furthermore, these farmers, as well as all claimants under the scheme, will continue to benefit from the substantial increase of 8% in the rate of aid introduced by the Government in 2007. In addition, of the 102,500 farmers who benefit under the disadvantaged areas scheme, in excess of 50,000 of these also benefit under the rural environment protection scheme, REPS, while in excess of 47,000 also benefit under the suckler welfare scheme, which introduces a new stream of payments to farmers this year. It should also be taken into account that in addition to the payments under these schemes, a further €920 million was paid to farmers with disadvantaged area lands under the 2007 single payment scheme. The total amount payable of €220 million to farmers under the disadvantaged areas scheme is part of the overall substantial injection of funds paid to farmers situated in the areas, and the scheme continues to be one of the best well funded disadvantaged areas schemes in the European Union.
Notwithstanding the difficulties in the public finances and the decisions I have taken against that background, the position is that in excess of €3.2 billion will be spent next year by the Department in support of agriculture, fisheries and food. It is important to get through this challenging period and continue towards achieving the full potential of our most important indigenous industry when the economy begins to grow again.
In light of what has happened in this House and outside it since budget day, will the Minister accept the budget is, in effect, merely a discussion document? The Minister for Finance was able to do a U-turn on the 1% levy. The Minister for Social and Family Affairs was able to do a U-turn today on the issue of entitlement to disability benefit for 16 year olds. We have had the U-turn on the medical card issue.
Is the Minister in a position to go to his Cabinet colleagues and deliver a better deal on this discussion document than his predecessors? This morning in Buswells Hotel, the Minister of State with responsibility for older people, God love her, Deputy Hoctor, asked the ICSA to give her the list of issues and she could arrange, through the Minister's good offices, for those to be dealt with and reconsidered.
In respect of disadvantaged area payments, the Minister is hitting the most vulnerable people who are farming the most marginal land. That payment was introduced for the specific purpose of maintaining the link between farmers in difficult disadvantaged areas and ensuring they could remain in farming. How can the Minister justify hitting the most vulnerable people in farming and taking €1,000 on average out of every one of those farmer's pockets? Will he go back to his Cabinet colleagues on this specific issue for those farmers who are the most marginalised and who are taking a bigger hit than any other sector in the economy in terms of the suckler cow scheme, the early retirement scheme, installation aid, and the disadvantaged areas scheme? We are talking about disadvantaged farmers. Will the Minister go to his Cabinet colleagues and tell them he also made a mistake, and that he will revisit this decision?
I dismiss Deputy Creed's suggestion that the budget is a discussion document.
They are all doing U-turns.
The Minister, without interruption.
Deputy Creed might listen for a change. He misquoted Deputy Máire Hoctor, the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children. The Minister of State did not say any such thing at the meeting with the ICSA.
The Minister was not there.
I checked it with the Minister of State and she gave me the accurate report. She outlined clearly to a spokesperson for the ICSA that of all the contributions she had heard in the room, nobody had suggested alternatives in terms of how funding could be transferred from one subhead to another. The Minister of State, Deputy Hoctor, has been misrepresented, as the Deputy has done just now. She said no such thing.
Is the Minister prepared to reconsider this issue?
Allow the Minister to answer the question, Deputy.
When somebody is misrepresented in the House, I want to correct it. I stated here that we had to make difficult decisions. This Department did not take a bigger hit than any other Department.
Look at the figures.
The reality is not what the Deputy tried to portray. If one takes into account a Supplementary Estimate on the capital side that was extremely high — €195 million——
Does the Minister have enough for next year?
Yes, I have enough.
We will see. Are you saying you will not be coming back with a Supplementary Estimate?
Deputy Creed issued a statement in August to the effect that nobody would be paid from thence on.
As a result you got up off your backside and introduced a Supplementary Estimate.
Please allow the Minister to answer the question. Supplementary questions should be put through the chair.
The reality is that in the coming year the following payments will be made to farmers: the single payment scheme, €1,300 million; REPS, €355 million; disadvantaged areas scheme, €220 million; and suckler cow welfare scheme, €44 million. A total of €33 million is being paid out under the suckler cow welfare scheme, which will be paid later this year. That is a new payment.
Some €40 per cow next year.
No. Deputy Creed is misrepresenting the situation again. He is obviously not prepared to listen and hear the facts. We had to reallocate some expenditure. I decided reluctantly to reduce the expenditure on the disadvantaged areas scheme. I have already outlined that the vast majority of people in the disadvantaged areas scheme will not have their payment affected. It is people with hectarage above 34 hectares who will be affected. Everybody will be paid up to the rate of 34 hectares.
I want to give the Deputy some facts. The total area that will not be payable under the new limit is 204,000 hectares in the cases of more severely and less severely disadvantaged lands, while the area reduced in the case of mountain type grazing is 102 hectares. There was some misrepresentation that that latter category with the biggest hectarage would be affected. That is not correct.
Where stands the commitment of the Minister, his Department and the Government to social partnership? These were schemes signed off in good faith less than 12 months ago, in respect of the sucker cow welfare scheme, when the Minister had or should have had full knowledge of the budgetary situation, if he was not asleep at the wheel. What about the commitment to an €80 payment per suckler cow and €90 next year? Where stands social partnership, which made arrangements recently for the disadvantaged area payments?
This year, as last year, an 8% increase was paid by the Department under the disadvantaged areas scheme. Deputy Creed refers to the suckler cow welfare scheme. It was agreed in the partnership agreement, Towards 2016, that a five year, €250 million suckler cow scheme would be introduced. That commitment will be honoured and no amount of misrepresentation by the Deputy——
Some €80 per cow. Deferred payments in 2009——
Deputy Creed does not want to listen to the facts. The Government gave a commitment and no misrepresentation on the part of the Deputy or others will deflect attention from the fact that it is honouring that commitment, which relates to the payment of €250 million through a new five-year suckler cow scheme. The commitment will be honoured.
Will the Minister, like his Government colleagues, do a U-turn and revisit the disadvantaged areas scheme?
5 Deputy Andrew Doyle asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the steps he will take to support the sheep industry; the specific resources that will be allocated in respect of the sheep industry in 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37776/08]
The sheep sector is an important part of the overall agrifood sector and its future depends on its ability to meet the needs of the market. The sheep industry strategy development group and the subsequent implementation group set the blueprint for the sector's future development. Most of the recommendations fall to be implemented by the industry. However, the Department and the State agencies under its aegis are also playing an active role. Good progress is being made and the following is a summary of the main actions taken: payments of an additional €6 million to qualifying sheep farmers were issued under the national reserve; the Department secured European Commission approval for a new supplementary measure in REPS 4 to promote the mixed grazing of cattle and sheep and under this a farmer can qualify for an annual payment of up to €1,000 in addition to his or her basic REPS payment; the pedigree sheep breeding programme, as operated by my Department in co-operation with the sheep breed societies, is being transferred to Sheep Ireland, a sister company of the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation and an interim sheep board has been established to manage and oversee the transfer; a trial to examine the feasibility of mechanical carcase classification for lamb — the results of which are expected shortly — was conducted earlier this year and it is hoped that the system will allow for the accurate and objective mechanical classification of lamb carcases and that it will gain universal industry support; the lamb quality assurance scheme, which was established in 2007, has led to some 6,500 farms being registered to date; Bord Bia is continuing to organise strategic marketing campaigns in selected European markets and in conjunction with its French and British counterparts, it is undertaking a three-year generic lamb promotion on the very important French market to promote lamb to younger consumers; and Teagasc has developed a comprehensive plan to restructure its sheep support services, including a programme for technology evaluation and transfer farms, which includes hill and lowland areas.
These measures complement those to be taken by the industry in the implementation of the Malone Report. I am satisfied that our Department is dealing satisfactorily with the areas of the report within its remit.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
Turning to the resources that will be available to the sector in 2009, it is worthwhile first to recall that €27.5 million approximately was paid under the sheep headage scheme and €107.5 million was paid under the ewe premium scheme in 2000 and 2004, respectively — the last years of operation of such coupled payments. Those schemes are now incorporated into the disadvantaged areas and single farm payment schemes and sheep farmers will continue to benefit under these subject to compliance with the relevant conditions.
I will now outline other financial provisions that will benefit the sheep sector. In the case of REPS, sheep farmers can qualify for the mixed grazing supplementary measure of up to €1,000 and, where appropriate, qualify for the increased payment rates on Natura 2000 land, non-Natura 2000 commonage and on designated NHA land. Some €355 million has been allocated to REPS for 2009.
Under the 2005 national reserve, some 500 hill sheep farmers benefit to the amount of €400,000 annually or €2.8 million over the period until 2012. In addition, a special category was included under the 2007 national reserve for sheep farmers whose existing single payments are less than €10,000 and where individual entitlements are less than the district electoral division, DED, average. Allocations are capped at the DED average value of entitlements or a total single payment of €10,000, whichever is the lesser, and allocations to successful applicants will not exceed €1,000. It is estimated that this measure will be worth some €6 million annually or €42 million over the period until 2012.
The pedigree sheep breeding programme as operated by my Department, in co-operation with the sheep breed societies, is being transferred to Sheep Ireland, a sister company of the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation, ICBF. An interim sheep board has been established to manage and oversee the transfer. To facilitate this transfer and to allow for redevelopment of the breeding programme, funding of €163,000 has been provided to date in 2008. My Department will provide further financial support to ICBF in 2009 for sheep breeding.
A trial to examine the feasibility of mechanical classification for lamb was conducted earlier this year at a cost of €135,000. Additional funding at a similar level may be made available to carry out additional feasibility work, if required, in 2009.
The lamb quality assurance scheme operated by Bord Bia has 6,500 participants and it is hoped to expand this by a further 6,000 in 2009. This could involve spending of up to €1 million depending on uptake. In addition, Bord Bia will spend in the region of €1 million on the promotion of sheep and lamb at home and abroad in 2009.
Teagasc allocated approximately €1.5 million in 2007 and 2008 on sheep research activities and these will be continued into 2009. This also covers specialist staff for the sheep programme established following the sheep strategy group's report. It does not include additional funding related to the advisory service, some of which would be directed towards sheep.
Finally, the problems facing the sheep sector are well known at EU level. The Minister's predecessor ensured they were discussed at the EU Agriculture Council of Ministers in March. This was followed by the Aylward report to the European Parliament and a conference hosted by the French Presidency of the EU in September. These initiatives have kept the sheep sector's concerns to the forefront and, in the context of the current CAP health check discussions, we continue to pursue possible solutions.
The Minister of State referred to wonderful schemes, feasibility studies, marketing tools, etc. Why have sheep numbers decreased by 50% in the past ten years and 240,000 on the most recent 12-month calculation? The disadvantaged areas scheme provides sheep farmers with a direct fillip in the context of their incomes. The owner of a 45-hectare sheep farm comprising mountain-type land will lose €1,055 on foot of the cuts in disadvantaged areas scheme payments. A PAYE worker would want to be earning €100,000 and be charged a levy at 1% to incur the same loss.
The REPS 4 measure to which the Minister of State referred involves €28 million. In May, only €9,000 of it had been drawn down. The measure is unworkable and the Minister of State is well aware of that.
The Minister, Deputy Smith, stated that Peter would not be robbed in order to pay Paul. What will happen to the single farm payment modulation in the context of the proposed sheep welfare scheme? I guarantee those opposite that a proposal will be made to take that money and pay it out directly by way of some measure relating to sheep. The long-term aim is to end the disadvantaged areas scheme and transfer the moneys relating to it to some rural development fund under the control of the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs.
The Deputy should ask a question.
I am doing so. In light of the statistics to which I refer in respect of sheep, how can the Minister of State say that everything is being done to protect the industry? What he said just does not add up.
There will be an increase of 8% in disadvantaged areas scheme payments.
The Minister of State is taking, on average, €1,000 off these people.
That amount might not be as much as people might like. However, we are doing our best within budgetary restraints that exist. We are not doing what the Deputy is attempting to do, namely, create a negative impression.
The Minister of State is not increasing it, he is decreasing it.
Deputy Doyle inquired as to why sheep numbers have decreased and he probably knows the answer to that question. As stated earlier, there is an issue to be addressed as regards the demand for sheepmeat. We must ensure that this demand increases.
Why is Bord Bia's budget being cut?
The situation is not helped by the fact that since the advent of single farm payments, farmers are no longer required to retain sheep for premia purposes. There was, therefore, a support based on numbers rather than on the areas in which the people affected were living.
Prices for the year are up by approximately 5% on last year. There has been a drop in recent weeks. This is a market-driven situation and the difficulties relating to it will not be solved by——
What about the €28 million?
——the provision of the kind of supports to which the Deputy refers. We must co-operate in respect of this matter.
What about the €28 million?
Deputy Creed should cease interrupting. He did not table this question.
I travelled to Paris in order to assist Bord Bia in its promotions because the French market is extremely important to Ireland. The reality is that sheepmeat is primarily being bought by older customers. We must try to bring about a change in that regard. This is the challenge we face. If Deputy Doyle has any useful suggestions to make, I would be more than happy to listen to them.
I received a reply to a parliamentary question I tabled yesterday regarding the number of sheep being slaughtered in Irish plants that originate in Northern Ireland, Scotland or England.
The Deputy is supposed to ask a question.
I am about to do so. In the reply I received yesterday, it is stated that in week 34 of 2006 some 3,964 animals were slaughtered, while 6,165 were slaughtered in the corresponding week in 2007. Does the Minister of State have any proposals to control the way in which the price in the Republic is controlled and managed by the processors in the context of the ebb and flow of the supply of meat they receive from countries outside the jurisdiction? It is a cartel.
I am aware of the reply to which the Deputy refers. There is no restriction with regard to sheep movements between the North and the South.
On a point of order, there are restrictions. It is not possible to export breeding sheep.
The Minister of State should be allowed to reply.
In terms of animals for slaughter, the Deputy is aware from the reply in question that Bord Bia promotes Ireland as the "Food Island".
Bord Bia's budget has been cut.
We do not have in place the restrictions that would be required if a problem arose. However, there is no such problem. We market the island as the "Food Island" and sheepmeat comes into the equation in that regard.
Not all of that meat originates on this island. Some of it comes from Scotland.
I take the Deputy's point. There may be a need to contact the authorities in Northern Ireland or Scotland in that regard. As already stated, however, we take a "one-island" approach.
The Malone report must be the point of focus for——
The provision of €28 million would be of more assistance.
There is also the issue of modulation.
——the industry, the Department and agencies such as Bord Bia. We are working through the recommendations contained in that report and this is where progress will be made.
It will be too late. There will be no industry left.
I hope the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Smith, will have more to say when he visits Tullamore.
