Vol. 665 No. 3
6 Deputy Emmet Stagg asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the agricultural policies as outlined in the programme for Government which have been implemented to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37476/08]
There are 94 commitments in the programme for Government for which my Department has direct responsibility. In the first year of the Government's five-year term, 67% of these commitments have been implemented or are, by their nature, being implemented on an ongoing basis. A detailed report on progress achieved is published on the web site of the Department of the Taoiseach, www.taoiseach.gov.ie. The following is a list of examples of major commitments that are being implemented.
The assignment to my Department of overall responsibility for the development and promotion of the agrifood sector is being strategically progressed through high-level interdepartmental groups and proactive sectoral policies. For the first time, the value of food and drink exports from Ireland reached €9.2 billion in 2007. The resources made available to Bord Bia have enabled it to exceed the Government target of doubling food exports to Asia two years ahead of target.
Grant assistance of €114 million is being provided for capital investment for the dairy processing sector. This will generate an estimated capital spend of about €286 million. Investment of €30 million has been put in place for innovative initiatives in the prepared consumer foods sector.
Significant funding has been provided to develop the competitiveness and sustainability of the overall agriculture, forestry and fisheries sector through the proactive implementation of the rural and national development plans. Payment levels under the rural environment protection scheme have increased by 17%. The average annual payment has grown from €6,170 to €7,220. Total payments in 2007 and 2008, to date, amount to €525 million. The provision for 2009 has been increased to €355 million. Almost €114 million was provided under the farm waste management scheme in 2007. Over €375 million will be spent on the scheme in 2008. This compares well to the agreed total allocation under the Towards 2016 agreement. The relevant section of that agreement states:
Payments under the new Farm Waste Management measure will be financed, at the rates already announced, from this funding package. A total of €350 million will be allocated for farm waste and other on-farm investment measures.
Advance payments of €532 million have already been issued under the 2008 single payment scheme, six weeks ahead of the normal commencement date. Balancing payments will commence on 1 December next and will continue as individual cases are cleared. In 2007, payments worth approximately €1.3 billion were issued under the scheme. A similar level of payment is expected under the 2008 scheme. The value of annual forestry premiums has been increased by 15%. The 100% establishment grants and 20-year payment period have been retained. Some €230.9 million has been spent on afforestation initiatives in 2007 and to date in 2008. The forestry provision for 2009 has been increased by 6% to €128 million. Some €42 million has been allocated for the voluntary fishing fleet decommissioning scheme to assist fleet restructuring and increase the level of fish quotas available for those remaining in the industry. In excess of €18 million was spent in 2007 on improving fisheries infrastructure and landing facilities under the fishery harbour and coastal infrastructure programme. A further €17 million has been provided to make progress with this work in 2009. This is an impressive list of achievements by any standards. It demonstrates the Government's commitment to the agri-food sector. We are keen to make progress with the commitments set out in the five-year programme for Government.
The original question was based on the premise that budgetary cuts have been applied across the board in the agriculture sector. This is the only opportunity available to me to highlight some of those cuts. For example, investment in research and training has decreased by 13%. Similar reductions have been applied in areas like food safety, health and welfare, plant health, income and market supports and income supports for disadvantaged areas. When one examines the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's entire programme of expenditure, one has to conclude that the Government's ability to implement the programme for Government is seriously hampered. Those of us responsible for the agriculture brief have not been given any legislation to consider since the last election. When will the animal welfare Bill be published, in line with the commitment in the programme for Government? The extensive consultation period in that regard does not seem to have come to a conclusion. On what date will it be concluded? I would also like to ask about the proposed establishment of an all-Ireland GM-free zone. When does the Department envisage that this process will be concluded and this policy will be implemented?
That will be interesting.
When does the Minister envisage that the target of dedicating 5% of acreage to organic farmland will be reached? The European Commission recently announced that it does not envisage that mandatory country of origin labelling will be introduced. The programme for Government states that mandatory country of origin food labelling will be extended to sheep, pig and poultry meat. Will that measure be implemented?
The forestry Bill is being prepared. The Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, who cannot be with us this afternoon because he has another commitment, has done extensive work on that Bill. Deputy Sherlock has asked about the animal welfare Bill on the Order of Business on a number of occasions. He is aware that a great deal of work has already been undertaken in that regard. Significant progress has been made with the drafting of the proposed animal health and welfare Bill. It is intended that the legislation will give effect to a number of the commitments outlined in the programme for Government.
The Deputy mentioned the process of public consultation on the draft Bill, which was initiated earlier this year. Almost 400 submissions, containing wide-ranging observations, were received during that process. They are being examined in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. If people go to the trouble of making detailed submissions and observations, it is only fair that they be given detailed and appropriate consideration. A number of those who made submissions subsequently contacted the Department to ask for meetings to be arranged to give them an opportunity to elaborate further on them. The drafting of the legislation is continuing. It is obvious that all the submissions will be taken into account during that process.
When I met representatives of various organisations, such as the Veterinary Council of Ireland and Veterinary Ireland, they indicated that they would like to meet departmental officials to elaborate further on their daily professional experience. I mention those two groups because I met delegations from them recently to discuss other matters. The representatives of the various bodies are keen to attend meetings so that these matters can be scrutinised in greater detail than is possible by means of written submissions of the type we all receive and sometimes make ourselves. I assure the House that substantial progress has been made with this important and complex legislation.
The Minister of State, Deputy Sargent, is actively promoting organic farming throughout this jurisdiction. The rural environment protection scheme makes provision for organic farming. Deputy Sherlock did not mention the substantial increase in expenditure under the scheme when he listed some of the matters which are covered in the Book of Estimates. The Minister of State has done exceptional work to encourage organic production in all parts of the country. Deputies will be aware that there have been huge attendances at the various farm walks and seminars which have been arranged to promote organic farming.
Deputy Sherlock also spoke about the issue of labelling. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in conjunction with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and the Department of Health and Children, has undertaken extensive work on the matter over recent years. The Department of Health and Children, on behalf of the Government, has provided detailed submissions on the issue to the European Union. Our proposals have not been approved, unfortunately.
7 Deputy Joe Carey asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide a status report on the Common Agricultural Policy health check negotiations; the potential impact the proposals will have on the agricultural sector here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37503/08]
The Common Agricultural Policy health check dossier was presented to Ministers at the informal Council meeting that was held in May. A full first round examination of the text of the dossier has been completed by the working groups. Most of the technical and linguistic issues have been addressed. Trilateral meetings took place at the meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 29 and 30 September to identify three main priorities for each member state. It is intended that the debate on the political issues will commence in October, at the special committee on agriculture and at a series of high-level working groups. Further trilateral discussions took place at a meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Luxembourg on Monday night and Tuesday morning of this week. The discussions aimed to further refine the outstanding political issues. The negotiations are entering a decisive phase. The French Presidency remains confident that the proposals will be adopted as a package at the November meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council. The health check proposals, which have been described as a fine tuning of the 2003 reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, concentrate on three areas. The implementation of the single payment scheme is being reviewed. Various market management measures, including the milk quota regime, are also being reviewed. The Union is working on its response to the new challenges of climate change, bioenergy, water management and biodiversity.
The impact of this package of measures on Irish agriculture will depend on what is agreed at the end of the negotiations. During that process, I will try to achieve the best possible outcome for Ireland and for our agriculture sector. I outlined the issues which are of concern to Ireland to the Commissioner, Ms Fischer-Boel, the French Presidency, Commission officials and to my colleagues in other member states. I will continue to take an active role in the discussions at every opportunity and to reiterate our priorities.
During the meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Luxembourg on Tuesday of this week, I had a productive and constructive private meeting with the Commissioner, Ms Fischer-Boel, and the President of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council, Mr. Barnier. We discussed Ireland's main priorities during the Common Agricultural Policy health check. I explained that my key concerns pertain to milk quotas and additional modulation. I stressed the need for a genuine soft landing in the milk sector when milk quotas come to an end. A predictable set of steps will have to be followed at that stage to allow farmers, and the industry as a whole, to plan for the future. I emphasised the need for progressive quota increases. I specifically requested that additional quota allocations for Ireland be front-loaded, in light of Ireland's capacity to increase production progressively. I asked the Commissioner to make adjustments to the butter fat calculations to facilitate the release of higher levels of quota in 2009.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
I outlined to the Commissioner my opposition to the substantial increase in modulation that is proposed. I sought an increase in available EU funding for special sectoral measures to assist farmers. Many member states, including Ireland, cannot fully utilise the funding allocated for the single farm payment scheme because of the complex and restrictive rules governing it. Therefore, I am seeking greater national discretion in the use of these funds. If agreed, this would release these unspent funds, in effect, and provide additional money for necessary measures to assist farmers. A consultative process with key stakeholders was established to advise on the main issues arising in the health check. The output from this will feed into Ireland's position in the negotiations.
I see Mr. Barnier has indicated an anxiety to complete the health check during the French Presidency. Does the Minister think that is realistic? Does the Minister agree with what is on the table regarding modulation? I am interested in this particularly in the context of the Irish sheep sector. I suspect a nod and wink game is being played between the Minister and the Commissioner; the Minister will publicly oppose the increased modulation, but on the basis that it will salvage the sheep sector, he will take credit for it out of the other side of his mouth. No robbing Peter to pay Paul is acceptable in the context of the single farm payment modulation proposals. We need something for the sheep industry but not by taking from one farmer's pocket to put it into another's. Returning here and hiding behind Commissioner Fischer Boel's coat tails on modulation will not be acceptable.
My second question is serious and coming from where he does in terms of the milk industry and processing companies in his area the Minister will be very familiar with it. Global dairy markets are in a tail spin. While much of the debate on the CAP health check is on increased quotas, would the Minister agree that the political imperative is to put some kind of floor price on dairy produce? Skimmed milk powder and butter prices are down almost 50% in 12 months. It is an alarming situation and predictions on price per litre will cause carnage not just at farm gate but also in the processing industry. Will the Minister use the health check to advance that agenda of imposing a floor price on dairy produce?
On the French Presidency's optimism or expectations on when the health check should be completed, there was an Agriculture and Fisheries Council on Monday and Tuesday of this week. The next meeting is on 18 and 19 of November and we have pencilled in another day for the end of November, around the last Friday of November. From speaking to other member states and the French Presidency, their expectation is that very substantial progress will be achieved by 19 November. We have all been advised for some time of the expectation of another council meeting before the end of November should the health check discussions not be finalised on 19 November. Earlier in the week we had our second trilateral meeting with Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel and with the Presidency, as have all other member states. The first meeting took place a few weeks earlier. We clearly outlined our total opposition to the proposals contained in the Commission papers for a very serious rise in modulation rates. We have consistently outlined our position, both in the Council of Ministers at the full plenary meetings and in our trilateral discussions.
In discussions officials of my Department and I have had with the dairy industry, processors and farming organisations, the views of the farming organisations diverge on the need for additional milk quota. Unfortunately, demand for daily products in Europe has decreased, which has resulted in lower prices for farmers. That has arisen due to increased exports from the US and New Zealand. Another ingredient in the decreasing prices has been currency fluctuations. I believe, and we have argued strongly with the Commission, that Ireland has the capacity to use additional milk quota. The processors and the dairy industry, apart from the dairy farmers, are——
I want to allow another supplementary question.
What about getting a floor price rather than more quotas?
The Minister might answer that with the next supplementary question.
On the modulation issue, I am reassured to a certain extent by the Minister's statement on the move from pillar one to pillar two. Is there a political appetite in the Council of Ministers for the rate of change from pillar 1 to pillar 2 as envisaged by the Commission proposal? My second question is on climate change proposals. There is a view that the basis of measurement of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture is predicated on a faulty methodology. Will the Minister examine that methodology and request an independent, scientific analysis of it? It will have far-reaching effects on Irish agriculture and that is the reason for my question.
On Deputy Creed's earlier point on the market mechanism measures, the Commission has strongly pushed for their removal. We have argued trenchantly that the aids to private storage and intervention measures are absolutely essential to ensure that this mechanism will kick in should there be a surge in supply from other continents or a dramatic reduction in demand. In our trilateral discussions we highlighted that issue, that the dairy industry needed those market mechanisms because it gives some stability to the industry in planning. In recent times, say last year, thankfully those measures were not needed.
Either Deputy Sherlock or one of his Labour Party colleagues has a question on climate change. At a recent Council of Ministers meeting I asked that a specific item be included on climate change as it affects agriculture. I spoke to Deputy Sherlock's colleague, Deputy McManus on this issue. A significant demand is being made on agriculture. The Department provided substantial funding through the stimulus of the FIRM fund where widespread research has been undertaken in the past few years and is undertaken. Teagasc, with other authorities, has done extensive research in this area. It goes into the whole area. There has been substantial progress in recent years in reducing emissions but that may not always be given the currency it should.
8 Deputy Seymour Crawford asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the amount by which he intends to cut the disadvantaged area payment; if this will be on a once off basis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37550/08]
My approach in preparing the 2009 Estimates for my Department was to focus available resources on the measures that allow us to maintain and grow the productive capacity of the agri-food sector. 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 protection scheme, REPS, where the rates of grant had been increased by 17%, the new suckler cow welfare scheme, the farm waste management scheme and the 8% increase in rates under the disadvantaged areas scheme, which has been paid in 2008 and was introduced in 2007.
I decided to reduce expenditure on the disadvantaged areas scheme for 2009 by reducing the maximum area limit to 84 acres, 34 hectares, 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. 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. Of the 102,500 farmers who benefit under the disadvantaged areas scheme, in excess of 50,000 of these also benefit under REPS, while in excess of 47,000 also benefit under the suckler welfare scheme, which introduces a new stream of payments to farmers in 2008. 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 of €220 million payable to farmers under the disadvantaged areas scheme is part of the overall substantial injection of funds paid to farmers situated in those areas. The scheme continues to be one of the best-funded disadvantaged areas schemes in the European Union.
Notwithstanding the difficulties in the public finances and the decisions I have taken against that background, more than €3.2 billion will be spent next year by my 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 as economic conditions improve.
What 8% increase in disadvantaged area payments is the Minister talking about when all the farming bodies have been informed that the average farmer in a disadvantaged area will lose €1,055?
What I stated to the House — I may have stated it twice — is that in 2007 the rate of payment was increased by 8%, and that rate of payment was continued in 2008. Obviously, that payment is continuing for all eligible applicants in next year's scheme. That 8% increase in payment is being continued. As the Deputy is aware, there is now a cut-off point of 34 hectares for payments, which was introduced due to budgetary constraints. The disadvantaged and severely handicapped areas are familiar to me. I am fully aware of the type of farming carried on there, the difficult terrain and so forth. This was one decision I was very reluctant to take but if I did not reduce expenditure in this area, some other worthy scheme would have had to suffer.
Does the Minister accept that, whatever way he wishes to camouflage it, he is taking an average of €1,055 from the majority of farmers in my constituency, where so much of the land is heaped up in mountains and hills? The most disadvantaged people are losing an average of €1,055 through the Minister's budgetary measures.
My information indicates that the majority of farmers in County Kerry do not come into the category to which Deputy Sheahan refers.
Does the Minister accept that the average loss will be €1,055?
No, it is less——
Is the average loss €905?
Less than 50% of farmers in County Kerry are affected, according to my——
Those already in the scheme are losing in the region of €1,000.
Nationally, over 60% of farmers are not affected by this scheme because their acreage is under the cut-off point of 34 hectares. The reduction in the maximum area payable from 45 hectares to 35 hectares will result in the payments of 35,162 farmers being reduced, but in excess of 102,000 farmers are in receipt of disadvantaged area payments.
There are 7,412 farmers in Kerry losing an average of €956 under the disadvantaged area payments scheme. How does that equate to an 8% increase?
My understanding is that the total number of farmers in disadvantaged areas in County Kerry is 7,666, over 3,000 of whom will be affected by this particular decision. I can double check those figures for Deputy Sheahan, but I am confident that they are accurate.
Where is the 8% increase?
As I have already said, and this will be the fourth time, that ——
Eaten bread is eaten bread.
I am just pointing out that over the past number of years there have been increases in different programmes. When resources were available, decisions were made to increase the level of funding towards particular programmes. Deputies may wish to dismiss an 8% increase as insignificant but I would not regard it as so for those in receipt of such payments.
9 Deputy Willie Penrose asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his attention has been drawn to the report by the Food and Veterinary Office recording ongoing failures by Brazil to meet EU standards. [37461/08]
The Deputy asks if our attention has been drawn to the report by the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office recording ongoing failures by Brazil to meet EU standards. I am aware of the report to which the Deputy refers. The Commission's Food and Veterinary Office recently published its final report of a follow-up mission carried out between 25 February and 13 March 2008 to evaluate measures that the Brazilian authorities introduced to address serious shortcomings on cattle traceability with regard to exports to the EU.
As the Deputy will be aware, the Commission proposed severe restrictions on Brazilian imports with effect from February of this year. However, the former Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, directed Department officials attending the standing committee to vote against the Commission's proposal and to call for an outright ban on beef imports from Brazil. While a complete ban was not agreed, the effect of the Commission's proposals was to limit exports of beef from Brazil to a relatively small number of herds. Based on this latest report, I have arranged for my Department to write to the Commission to have this matter urgently discussed at the European Commission's standing committee on the food chain and animal health.
It is clear that there are still issues of concern relating to Brazilian beef. While I welcome the Minister of State's reply and acknowledge that beef exports from Brazil are confined to a small number of herds, the amounts within those herds would probably far outweigh the Irish national herd. The numbers in question are still significant.
I welcome the Minister of State's reply and accept that the Department has chosen the correct course of action in the circumstances.
It is important to provide as much information as possible to Deputies and, in that context, it is interesting to note the up to date figures for EU beef imports. Brazilian beef imports to the EU have gone down considerably and much of the imports that are now coming from that country are of cooked meat, which was not affected by the Commission's decision. Last year, 5,123 tonnes of beef were imported into Ireland from Brazil, compared to 1,448 tonnes this year, which is quite a considerable drop in volume. It is important to bear in mind that Brazil's misfortune is other countries' opportunity. New Zealand beef imports have increased from a very low base to quite a significant amount of tonnage, at 108 tonnes. Similarly, Uruguay has also gone up from a very small base of just over 13 tonnes to 1,954 tonnes. That is the kind of dynamic that is going on at present. In the meantime, we obviously have an opportunity here in Ireland because of the increase in beef prices.
It is important to state that an outright ban on Brazilian beef imports is by no means a foregone conclusion. The European Commission has been assisting with advice and training of officials in the Brazilian authorities to ensure that auditing and evaluation would extend to local officials. That is as they are required to do. If they have a problem, they are required to indicate the nature of that problem and also what needs to be done in order for trade to resume.
Brazil is marking time and getting its house in order. In the meantime, we will have a meeting at EU level. I hope the report will be on the agenda of the next meeting of the standing committee on the food chain and animal health but I am not sure if that is the case.
10 Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the decision to cut €37 million from the critical and long-standing disadvantaged areas scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37433/08]
Does Deputy Sherlock want to take that as the same question?
Am I to take it that the answer is the same as that given for Question No. 8?
Farmers are losing money and there is no way for the Minister to dress that up.
Shall we move on to Question No. 11?
I wish to ask a supplementary question.
The Deputy may do so and we will take the answer as read.
That is fine.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
My approach in preparing the 2009 Estimates for my Department was to focus available resources on the measures that allow us to maintain and grow the productive capacity of the agrifood sector. The 2009 Estimates provide over €1.8 billion for my Department, and, when combined with EU funding of €1.4 billion, total expenditure in 2009 by my Department will amount to over €3.2 billion.
While difficult decisions had to be taken in light of the situation with 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%, the new suckler cow welfare scheme, the farm waste management scheme and, indeed, the 8% increase in rates under the disadvantaged areas scheme itself, introduced in 2007.
With regard to the 2009 disadvantaged areas scheme, I decided to reduce expenditure for next year by reducing the maximum area limit to 34 hectares, or 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 REPS, while in excess of 47,000 also benefit under the suckler welfare scheme, which introduced a new stream of payments to farmers in 2008. 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 my 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.
I will take the answer as read but I wish to state that money is being taken out of farmers' real income here. Some of the measures that have been implemented in this budget, including this one, will bring about a further demise in agricultural productivity.
As I outlined in previous responses, this particular payment is one of a number that are made by the Department. Some agricultural programmes are funded by the Exchequer, while others are funded by the European Union. In 2009, some €44 million will be provided for the suckler cow welfare scheme, €220 million for the disadvantaged areas scheme, €355 million for the rural environment protection scheme and €1.3 billion in respect of the single payment scheme. They are all very substantial payments. There is also a substantial programme of investment in on-farm facilities. In the partnership programme agreed in 2006, agreement was reached that funding of approximately €350 million would be provided in respect of on-farm investment schemes for the duration——
The Department has ridden roughshod over some of those programmes since then. The Minister is being very selective, with all due respect.
Deputy Sherlock queried, understandably, the level of financial commitment to the agricultural industry. All of those schemes are important. This year alone €377 million was devoted to the farm waste management scheme. These are all important measures for farmers. We cannot ignore the substantial funding both from the Exchequer and from the European Union this year, which will continue next year. These are all important schemes.
The farm waste management scheme is a result of obligations under European Commission rules which had to be implemented.
Unfortunately we had to make a decision to reduce——
Lest the impression be created that farmers seek a special deal, they do not. Farmers and the farming organisations I have consulted acknowledge the difficult financial circumstances and say they are prepared to shoulder their fair share of the burden.
Previously I remarked on budgetary U-turns and said we should treat this budget as a work-in-progress. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Lenihan, has exempted minimum wage recipients from the 1% levy. Since the Minister has the Teagasc farm income survey at his fingertips, will he consider exempting anyone in receipt of farm assist, which is top-up payments from the Department of Social and Family Affairs or the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs? Will the Minister, Deputy Smith, consider exempting any farmer in receipt of farm assist from the reduction in disadvantaged area payments? The Minister can talk about increases, but remember that behind all these figures are farm families subsisting on annual incomes of less than €20,000. These payments make up a substantial part of that income. Even those on such minimum wages say they are prepared to shoulder their fair share of the burden. However, this is not a 1% levy on farm incomes, it is a significant proportion of their income. There are farmers throughout the country losing between €5,000 and €6,000. Those in disadvantaged areas are set to lose on average €1,000. Will the Minister exempt those in receipt of farm assist for a start?
There are 102,000 farmers in the disadvantaged area scheme.
We have heard all of this before.
This measure or reduction in the payment applies to farms greater than 34 hectares. The average size of a family farm in Ireland is 31 hectares. The reduction in expenditure kicks in at——
The Minister is aware that extensive holdings in the west are not as fertile as the golden vale.
I am fully aware of that. The decision was made and will result in a loss to those individuals.
It is disproportionate and unfair.
More than 60,000 will not be affected by this measure.
These measures will further undermine the rural economy and that is the bottom line.
Every sector wishes to contribute at a time when there are particular difficulties, but I have not heard any suggestion of an alternative from anyone here or anywhere else.
We did provide a suggestion.
We have only two minutes left. I will allow two Deputies speak briefly, namely, Deputies Doyle and Sherlock.
Will the Minister review the whole matter? The Minister says there will be savings in administration of 1% or €3.9 million of a total budget of €311 million. The Minister is either suspending or closing programmes. There is some €215 million in the development programmes and some €37 million in the disadvantaged areas programme.
The Deputy is giving information.
Will the Minister review the matter?
I call Deputy Sherlock.
It is no more than a 1% reduction in administration costs.
At least two Deputies referred to the 1% levy. In the aftermath of the budget I discussed the issue with individual farmers, colleagues in the Oireachtas and farm organisations. I then spoke to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, about the imposition of the 1% levy and how it might affect the farming community. The issues of taxation and the 1% levy will be finalised in the Finance Bill 2008. I have already conveyed to the Minister for Finance the issues raised by the farm organisations. I have also discussed with the Minister for Finance measures which could be considered in the Finance Bill 2008 that may affect new and young entrants to agriculture.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
