Vol. 674 No. 2
64 Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the reason REPS 4 applicants have not been paid 12 months after they submitted their applications; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5282/09]
REPS 4 is a measure under the current Rural Development Programme 2007-13 and is subject to different EU regulations from the preceding versions of REPS. Under REPS 4, all payments are to be made in just two instalments. The first payment of 75% can be made only when all administrative checks on all 2008 applications for REPS 4 and the single payment scheme are completed. These include checks on areas and on plan details and the controls have to satisfy stringent EU regulatory and audit requirements.
Some 9,800 REPS 4 plans have been prepared using eREPS, the electronic planning system approved and funded by the Department. The information on these plans is in computerised format and it was necessary to develop an appropriate computer-based control system for checking them. This was a lengthy process and the system was only available from late autumn. The substantial minority of plans submitted this year that were not prepared using eREPS — about 3,000 — have to be checked manually and this is extremely time-consuming. Industrial action in the Department's local offices last year meant that this part of the process was delayed. In the circumstances, the Department sought some flexibility from the European Commission which would have allowed payment of those REPS 4 cases which had been fully cleared, but the Commission was not prepared to allow it.
The first payments for 2008 REPS 4 applications were issued in the last week of January to those whose applications required no correction following the administrative checks. Further payments continue to be made.
For thousands of farmers awaiting payment under REPS 4, that explanation will not wash. Notwithstanding administrative checks or industrial relations disputes, applications have been with the Department since late 2007, yet neither the Minister or his officials has been in a position to communicate directly with these farmers until now to tell them that there has been such an administrative problem. Teagasc and private planners are clearly stating that this problem emanates from the Minister's Department and that they were never apprised of any additional requirements for REPS 4 when they were submitting their original applications.
I suggest that the Minister go back to the European Commission post-haste and seek permission to pay immediately REPS 4 entitlements for the first year, given the cash difficultly in which farmers find themselves. Let us use the intervening period between payment for the first year and the second year to resolve outstanding administrative difficulties that have arisen.
I am also concerned with the delay in getting out a REPS payment for which the funding has been provided and is in place. Almost 11,000 applications were submitted until 15 May 2008, which were related to 2007. Of the 12,292 REPS 4 applications in 2008, only 11% passed all the administrative checks. We went to Europe towards the end of the year and we sought permission from the European Commission to continue the previous system whereby advance payments would be issued. The European Commission would not allow us to do so. I do not agree with the statements made by some private planners and by some people in Teagasc that it is the fault of the Department.
There are obvious errors in these applications. There are decimal points in the wrong place and there are missing documents——
For God's sake, decimal points should not hold up applications.
This influences the technology. These are minor errors, but there also errors in which plans are omitted and where there are inadequate biodiversity provisions. The Department officials have gone back to many individual farmers and their planners and have been in a position to rectify the errors made by the people who submitted the plans in the first place. We want to eliminate the disparities involved. More than 2,000 payments have been issued up until last Monday, and they continue to be issued every day. I do not accept that if plans are sent in with obvious errors, it is somehow the fault of the receiving Department.
It is the fault of the receiving Department, because for over 14 months it has failed to communicate advice in any way to individual applicants or their planners that there has been a difficulty, be it a decimal point or a biodiversity plan. There is a different interpretation being taken and if these people were not apprised of different interpretations of biodiversity under REPS 4, then that is a failure of communication on the part of the Minister's Department.
Given the cash flow difficulties of farmers, can the Minister not make arrangements to pay? He should go to Brussels, use the Government's muscle and make arrangements to pay the first year of the scheme. He should give an assurance that in the intervening period, the outstanding issues can be resolved with the individual farmers and their planners.
I said that there was a range of errors from omission of plans to wrongly designated areas. Surely the official examining that particular application in the Department is not responsible for sending in the wrong information——
The Minister has not communicated with the farmers in 14 months.
During the course of 2008, REPS 4 was not the only REPS programme analysed and funded by the Department. The Department paid out €330 million in 2008 under the REPS 3 programme. Those applications were processed and paid out. The European Commission has made it known to us in no uncertain terms that it wants all applications checked and all errors rectified before payments can be issued.
A new measure introduced by the Department will make it compulsory for REPS planners to submit all plans using eREPS, which is the Department's electronic planning system. This system will include built-in automatic checks which will ensure that information provided by planners avoids the main errors discovered in the recent administrative checks. This will considerably reduce the time taken up by the process of administrative checks. If the planner submits an application that contains an error, the Department's technology will reject that application and this will eliminate errors. The Department put considerable resources into putting in place this particular technological system.
Not good enough.
Very substantial funds have been issued and are being issued.
65 Deputy Seán Sherlock asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the position regarding the pesticides directive; the obligations landowners will have regarding legislation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5074/09]
In adopting the sixth environmental action plan in 2002, the European Parliament and the Council agreed an approach involving implementation and revision of the relevant legal framework for pesticides, through the development of a thematic strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides. The thematic strategy is designed to revise and enhance the existing legislative framework and to target the use phase of plant protection products.
The objectives of the strategy set out in the communication are to encourage rational and responsible use of pesticides, as well as appropriate crop and soil management practices; to improve the behaviour of pesticide users, by ensuring better training and education; and to improve the quality of pesticide application equipment to optimise the effectiveness of treatment, while minimising adverse impact on human health and the environment. Implementation of the strategy has resulted in the European Commission submitting proposals for a directive establishing a framework for Community action to achieve sustainable use of pesticides; a regulation of the European Council and of the Parliament concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market; and a regulation of the European Council and of the Parliament concerning statistics on plant protection products.
The main provisions of the directive on sustainable use of pesticides address the establishment of national action plans to set objectives to reduce risks; an obligatory system of training and certification for professional users of pesticides; inspection of application equipment; prohibition of aerial spraying with possible derogations; specific measures to protect the aquatic environment; designation of areas of greatly reduced or zero pesticide use; handling and storage; integrated pest management; and establishment of harmonised risk indicators for pesticides.
On its adoption and implementation, the proposal will lead to a wide range of additional controls to enhance further the degree of protection afforded those distributing, handling and using plant protection products; a requirement to prepare national action plans to reduce the risks associated with use of plant protection products, involving a systematic and co-ordinated programme to reduce further the degree of risk arising for the environment; and a requirement for deployment of additional resources, by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and its associated agencies, to give effect to the range of additional measures introduced.
The proposed directive on sustainable use of pesticides is progressive and ambitious. Adoption of this proposal will further enhance the high level of protection afforded to humans, animals and the environment already achieved through the current regulatory system for pesticides. It will serve to limit the use of plant protection products to situations where their use is essential and will extend the range of controls in place governing the use of pesticides.
During negotiations, the Department has ensured that any additional controls proposed are justified and would make a real contribution to the sustainability of environmentally sensitive agricultural production in Ireland. In this regard, the issue of "use reduction" targets in the proposals presented difficulties in an Irish context. While the directive will not place obligations on landowners per se, it will place obligations on the users of pesticides to acquire training and certification, to have their application equipment tested and certified and to implement integrated pest management. The directive has gone through its Second Reading in the European Parliament and Council and is due for final decision at Council in March 2009.
The Minister neglected to mention that before the Common Position was reached, it was proposed to reduce the quantities of pesticides supplied or used by 50%. That proposal did not take into account the national plant health requirement to have certain substances available. Similarly, it did not take into consideration the properties of the substances concerned. Will a list of the specific pesticides that are to be prohibited as a result of the directive, or the Common Position that has been reached, be provided? The Minister mentioned that people will have to be trained to use pesticides. Will such training comprise another layer of bureaucracy to be dealt with by landowners and farmers before they can set about their daily business of growing crops? What is the Irish position on this directive? I accept that the directive is specifically aimed at protecting human and animal health, which is laudable. We need to find out, within the remit of Question Time, what impact the directive will have on farmers and landowners. Will a list of pesticides be prescribed?
Deputy Sherlock's questions relate to the regulation rather than the directive. Ireland, like other European countries, will have to draw up an action plan. With regard to the regulation, we oppose the proposal to introduce hazard-based cut-off criteria for the approval of substances. The Deputy asked about training. People will be trained to apply and use pesticides properly, in line with best practice. Certain forms of machinery will be used to apply various pesticides at different times. Public commentary on this issue often causes confusion when people refer to the "directive" rather than the "regulation". I understand that until now, the approval phase involved various products being deemed to be suitable for use on land. The residue regulations provide for consumer protection. The directive and regulation under discussion will address a lacuna that exists in the use phase, when a particular pesticide is applied. While Ireland and Britain are often on different sides of the argument at meetings of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council, we have been ad idem with Britain and Hungary on these measures. We have opposed some of the proposals because we believe we should have had an opportunity to undertake an impact assessment of them. We have not received such a concession from the European Commission.
When Ministers speak about EU legislation, they have a tendency to use words like "lacuna". The Minister's response was somewhat confusing. I will try to interpret it as best I can when I read the Official Report. If there is a Common Position and a framework for Community action, there will be a prescribed set of pesticide uses or functions. Will there be a defined list? Will pesticide users be required to undertake training? Does the Minister envisage that this will be implemented within a certain timeframe? The Minister has said that Ireland had an alliance with Britain and Hungary on this issue, but what position did the three countries take? Did Ireland abstain when the vote was taken on the final Common Position? Did Ireland vote against it?
If these proposals are approved by the Council, an action plan will be put in place by the middle of 2011. We received support at official and political level from our counterparts in Britain and Hungary for our position, which we argued consistently. If I recall correctly, no other country supported the position. We expressed particular concerns about the proposal to base decisions on hazard-based cut-off criteria, rather than on the scientific principles of risk assessment. Some substances that are crucial to crop protection in Ireland may fail to meet the new cut-off criteria. With regard to some fungicide uses, for example, we argued consistently that consideration should be given to this country's climate conditions. Mediterranean countries like Spain are concerned about insecticide, whereas Ireland's damp climate means that fungicide is the major issue here. As we have consistently pointed out, we do not have the final text of the proposal that will be put to the Council of Ministers next month. We do not know exactly what it will be. For some time, it has been suggested that an action plan will have to be drawn up by the middle of 2011. If the proposals are agreed and need to be implemented at EU level, the Department will meet the relevant stakeholders in the middle of this year to consult them. One of the factors driving these proposals at Commission level is a recent Eurobarometer report, which found that the use of pesticides is the biggest concern of EU citizens when it comes to food safety issues. This issue will not go away.
66 Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the drawdown from the €180 million fund approved by Dáil Éireann to deal with the pork dioxin contamination; the safeguards in place to ensure the taxpayer is not asked to provide compensation in respect of pork that is not of Irish origin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5283/09]
Under the agreement that was concluded with pig processors in December 2008, €180 million is being made available from the public finances to help processors to fund the recall and destruction of certain pork products that were in the market or in storage at the time of the recall. The details of the agreement, which allowed processing plants to resume operations within a week, are reflected in the pigmeat recall scheme that has been established by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The scheme, which covers affected products in Ireland and in overseas markets, is important in so far as it will ensure that such products are destroyed and will facilitate the return to normal market conditions. The Department is involved in other activities to assist the pigmeat sector. Along with Bord Bia, the Department is actively seeking to restore access to markets that were temporarily closed due to the dioxin incident. I am glad that our efforts to date have brought some success. The frank and open way in which we dealt with the issue has borne fruit.
The EU "aids to private storage" scheme, which has a potential cost of €15 million, might also prove beneficial in this regard. It allows for the temporary removal of 30,000 tonnes of pigmeat from the market. Some €37.1 million has been paid so far under the pork recall scheme, which provides for assistance in respect of eligible produce manufactured from pigs slaughtered in Ireland between 1 September and 6 December 2008. A case has been made to consider offering help in respect of other products manufactured in Ireland that were affected by the product recall, including products containing both Irish and imported pigmeat and products made here using solely imported pigmeat that, at the time of the recall, could not be segregated satisfactorily to facilitate their sale. The Department is considering the position of such products and the claims made by some people in the industry.
The pig industry is not yet out of the woods in so far as this crisis is concerned. I implore the Minister to continue to micro-manage this issue. Producers and processors are dealing with serious issues. It is one thing that the markets are open, but it is a significantly different thing to regain market share on the supermarket shelves. Does the Minister agree that the Irish taxpayer would be appalled at the prospect of having to pay compensation to Irish processors of bacon from the Netherlands, Chile or any other foreign country? The Minister and his Department, like the Minister's predecessors who were responsible for previous programmes for Government, have failed to deliver an adequate system of country of origin labelling. It was a flag of convenience in previous programmes for Government, but it has not been delivered. As a result of the Department's failure to deliver country of origin labelling, Irish taxpayers may have to pay compensation in respect of pork that was not produced here.
This country's bovine compensation scheme, which pertains to animals that are diseased, is well established. No similar scheme is available in the pig industry, perhaps for good reasons. Compensation has been paid in respect of bovine animals that were fed with contaminated feed during the recent crisis. I understand the level of compensation is relatively close to the cost of replacing those animals. Those in the pig sector have been left swinging in the wind; the compensation they have received comes nowhere near meeting re-entry costs. Is it the Department's unspoken agenda to force these producers out of the business, given that the compensation offered to them comes nowhere near meeting re-entry costs.
I reject the Deputy's final comments. I fully appreciate the serious difficulties arising from the contamination incident caused to individual pig producers, the processing industry and everybody involved in the pork trade.
From day one the Department and Government worked extremely hard to bring a conclusion to that incident as rapidly as possible. This House agreed a Supplementary Estimate prior to Christmas to enable the issuing of interim payments, which were crucial to stimulate movement in the system again. Such payments needed to trickle down to the individual pig producer who was waiting for payment from the processing facilities.
In regard to labelling, the Department of Health and Children, on behalf of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, put forward specific proposals to the European Commission on labelling for pigmeat, poultrymeat and sheepmeat on a number of occasions.
It is not listening to those who put them forward.
Unfortunately, those proposals were not accepted by the European Union. I mentioned at a recent committee meeting, and the Deputy questioned me on this recently, that I had observed a different attitude to labelling among other member states, country of origin labelling and European Union labelling. The Minister, Mr. Benn, in our nearest neighbour Britain, spoke recently about the need for consumers to know from where their food originates. It is a welcome move by Britain that it wants the know from where food is coming. Some other member states have also expressed an interest in this issue.
Is the Minister aware of the period of delay between producers providing pigs to processors and payment being received? The period of delay is significantly different from the period involved prior to the dioxin contamination? In addressing that, will the Minister indicate how much money has been paid out? If it is necessary to pay out additional funds to the processors or others who have been affected, it should be done quickly to ensure these people can have the financial muscle to re-establish themselves in the market. Bord Bia has a role to play, but these individual companies also need financial assistance to regain market share and to pay farmers for the pigs they are producing. How much money has been drawn down? Are payments imminent? When will all the money be drawn down?
Under the specific pork recall scheme, €37.1 million has been paid to date.
Some €37 million.
Some €37.1 million and the possibility of making second interim payments is currently being examined. Naturally every claim from a processor must be validated. As the Deputy rightly said, we have to protect the taxpayer. Whether the product is abroad or here, it must be rendered and validated by a competent authority. We will not pay out money until the relevant checks have been done. That does not include the figure for payments made to farmers who unfortunately had to have their herds slaughtered. I will not give a figure for that, but I can clarify it and advise the Deputy tomorrow.
Does the Minister realise that some producers are contemplating not killing animals again?
There was no delay on our part in issuing payments. The funding is in place. We work under a system where a claimant must prove his or her eligibility for payment. We must have our checks and balances in place. We have to ensure that every claim is properly validated.
Those checks are putting pig producers out of business.
We are moving on to Question No. 67 in the name of Deputy Sherlock.
Deputy Creed spoke about the need to protect the taxpayer. We will do that and we will issue the payments as rapidly as we can, as we have done. We dealt with this scheme very effectively and efficiently.
Producers are being put of business.
67 Deputy Seán Sherlock asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the policy in regard to assisting landowners in growing crops for production of biofuels or alternative energy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5075/09]
The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food recognises the key role that farmers can play in providing feedstocks for biofuel and biomass production. Our role is to support the supply side of the market by assisting farmers to grow energy crops. In accordance with the national bioenergy action plan, we are providing a number of incentives to improve the profitability of growing energy crops.
In 2007, we introduced a bioenergy scheme to encourage farmers to plant miscanthus and willow for bioenergy purposes. Aid is available to cover 50% of establishment costs, subject to a maximum payment of €1,450 per hectare. The scheme has generated considerable interest with more than 1,800 hectares planted so far. The third phase was launched recently to aid the planting of a further 1,800 hectares in 2009. Further supports for energy crop production include EU and national premiums worth €125 per hectare. Aid for energy crop production is also available under the rural environment protection scheme and the disadvantaged areas scheme, subject to some restrictions on the areas planted. As a further support measure, land planted with energy crops can qualify for the single farm payment.
The Department is also funding research projects that relate directly to energy crops through the research stimulus fund programme. The aim of this research is to identify plant varieties and crop production systems that are most suited in the Irish context. Teagasc is also assisting farmers in energy crop cultivation. It is carrying out research on growing energy crops at the Oak Park Crops Research Centre and it provides technical advice to landowners on how best to grow energy crops. In 2008, it published a farm diversification manual providing detailed technical advice on energy crop cultivation. Together with Teagasc, my Department co-funded an educational DVD to advise farmers on planting and harvesting willow and miscanthus. I can obtain a copy of that DVD for the Deputy if would like it.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
These measures are intended to complement the demand side schemes introduced by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to promote the use of biofuels in the Irish transport market. The mineral oil tax relief scheme valued at €205 million and the proposed biofuel obligation scheme should provide an additional stimulus for the production of energy crops.
The cultivation of energy crops provides an alternative land use option for farmers and is part of the solution to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. I am confident that the measures introduced by my Department will assist farmers in realising the many opportunities to grow energy crops.
I understand the target set by the EU Commission for the production of biofuels is 10% by 2020. The European Parliament and its environment committee, which consists of members from across the political divide, voted to scale down the proposed EU-wide target of 10% by 2020 to 4% by 2015. Notwithstanding the 1,800 hectares of miscanthus planted, to which the Minister of State referred, we have moved from the planting of 137 hectares of energy crops in 2003 to just more than 9,000 hectares in 2007, which represents approximately 0.02% of all agricultural land. Teagasc has estimated that potentially 75,000 to 100,000 hectares of land could be devoted to energy crops in Ireland without impacting negatively on food production.
Are the targets that have been set realistic? Is the Government doing enough to encourage farmers to get into the business of growing crops for fuel? How will the food versus fuel debate impact on Ireland? What is the Government doing to encourage more farmers to diversify into such production? Is there a ready market available for fuel crops?
Tá cúpla ceist ansin. Ar dtús, on the fuel versus food issue, as the Deputy mentioned, we are a long way from the conflict in this area that pertains in other parts of the world, given that we have only 6,000 hectares of such crops planted. The evaluation is that we could plant up to 70,000 hectares before we would have to make the difficult choices being made in other parts of the world. Such production impacts mainly on water resources. In those countries the volume of water taken to grow fuel crops might otherwise be for human consumption.
There is no doubt that a market must be available for such crops. There also must be a willingness to produce them. Miscanthus is more popular than willow, even though there is good reason to plant willow. Marketing is also a factor. The trend can be detected from what is being done in the sector. For example, cereal farmers are more inclined to diversify into oil seed rape production, which necessitates the use of similar machinery and agronomy, of which the farmers have experience.
A number of factors come into play. It is too early to say whether the 10% target is realistic. The jury is still out on that. It will not be advantageous for us if the target set is complied with through imports of such crops simply for the sake of complying with a bureaucratic target. We must closely monitor the position to ensure we are not impacting on other marketable areas of food production for the sake of reaching a nominal percentage target set by the EU.
I put it to the Minister that it is hardly a bureaucratic target, it is a political target that was reached partly with the agreement of the green movement throughout the European Union. I do not mean to be facetious when I say that.
Politics is part of bureaucracy, as the Deputy knows.
We are currently at a point where fuel prices have decreased due to the fall in oil prices. The Government has a tendency to take its foot off the pedal with regard to developing a coherent and long-term policy. Post CAP reform, there will be an abyss into which many Irish farmers will fall. There will be significant loss of revenue. This is one way in which the slack can be taken up. I put it to the Minister that the Government must come back to the House with a defined Government policy on how farmers can look to the future with regard to alternative energy production and the creation of markets.
That review is underway and I look forward to further questions in order that we can report on it. The Department is reviewing the scheme and intends to have that completed by mid-2009 in order to assess the need for a further scheme. The new scheme will require State aid approval and we must address this as well as additional Exchequer funding. It will have to take account also of all other demands made. A growth area such as bio-energy must be encouraged because it is an investment that will ensure we are not so dependent on imported fuel. Although we export 80% of our food production we import 90% of the energy for it. Somewhere along the line we must try to reduce that import dependency. Bio-fuel is one of the ways of achieving that.
68 Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the amount of money required by his Department to meet its full outstanding liabilities under the farm waste management scheme and the farm investment scheme respectively; the amount provided to each scheme in his Department’s Estimates for 2009; if, in view of the financial hardship being experienced by individual farmers due to the failure of his Department to meet its contractual commitments, he will begin to process and pay outstanding liabilities in full; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5284/09]
The farm waste management scheme was introduced by my Department in March 2006 in order to assist farmers meet the additional requirements of the nitrates directive. The farm improvement scheme was introduced in July 2007 under the aegis of the 2007-13 rural development programme. The deadline for completion of work and the submission of claims for grant payment under the farm waste management scheme expired on 31 December 2008, although applicants were permitted to submit certain supporting documentation up to 9 January 2009.
Almost 17,400 claims remain to be processed to payment stage under the farm waste management scheme in 2009 and, in view of the exceptional number of payment claims received, my Department is undertaking a review of the situation which includes an assessment of the overall cost of these claims. I have already confirmed on a number of previous occasions that farmers will receive payment in respect of all works which have been completed prior to the deadline in accordance with my Department's technical specifications.
Last week, the Government took a number of decisions on the overall expenditure control and economic strategy that included the funding for the farm waste management scheme and arrangements for payment of grant aid on a phased basis. My Department is in discussion with the Department of Finance on the implications for the Department's Vote and the details that will be published in the Revised Estimates Volume next month.
Significant funding has been made available under the farm waste management scheme since its introduction in 2006, with over €527 million spent over the last two years alone. In addition, almost €13 million has been made available under the farm improvement scheme over the same period and claims are being processed and payments made as normal by my Department under the latter scheme.
I am not sure whether we are supposed to jump up and down and clap when we hear the Minister say he will pay. The big question for farmers is when they will be paid. Is the Minister aware that for every month he delays payment — I will not make reference to the charter of rights which speaks about payment within eight weeks — interest payments made by farmers to banks come to approximately €3 million? That sum comes directly from farmers' pockets.
I presume that before the Minister came into the House he was talking about recapitalising the banks. Possibly after he leaves here he will continue to do so as he will return to a Cabinet meeting. That policy should inform every Department and the way in which they approach such issues. Paying the farmers their farm waste management scheme grants would, in effect, recapitalise the banks. The farmers will take the grant with one hand and hand it with the other to the bank managers to whom they owe money. My questions for the Minister are simple. When will they be paid? Will he bring in a Supplementary Estimate to provide for payment?
I said earlier that the payments would be made on a phased basis. The Government is not in a position to make full payment this year. What has been decided is to have payments made on a phased and proportionate basis.
That is outrageous.
To date, €548.7 million has been paid out from the Exchequer on this scheme.
That is of no benefit to farmers who want grants.
I will deal with the schemes that were there when Fine Gael was in government.
Allow the Minister to answer the question.
More than——
Promises were made.
Promises made will be honoured, as they always are.
Honour the farmers who should have been paid.
The Deputy's predecessors——
Please, Deputy Kehoe. This is a priority question.
I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. More than 18,000 farmers have been paid in full. Over 17,000 remain to be paid. The expenditure available to us this year will enable us to pay all the remaining 17,400 payment claims when they are processed. Of those a 40% payment will be made during the course of this calendar year, 40% of the remaining payment will be made in the first days of January 2010 and the remaining 20% in January 2011.
Outrageous.
Allow the Minister.
This funding will amount to approximately €550 million. If one takes the coming January date, within ten months €988 million will have been paid out of a scheme that will cost the Exchequer in excess of €1 billion. This means that 90% of all eligible claimants will be paid by 3 January next. With the funding available this year we could have made a decision to pay more than 7,000 applicants their full payment. That would not be fair to other people who would receive no payment this year. The Government decided that payments should be made on a proportionate basis, namely, 40% to claims that are processed and cleared with immediate effect. Others will be paid 40% of their entitlement as they are cleared and passed during the year.
I will allow a further supplementary question from Deputy Creed.
Another aspect of Deputy Creed's question concerned the banks. I appreciate there are farmers who have substantial commitments and bank loans. Everybody in this House knows these farmers who depend on the payments to come through.
Pay them.
I have spoken already to the major banks and am to meet them during the course of this week. I have asked that particular provision be made for individual farmers, in respect of their loans, to comprise a grant element. That money is guaranteed by the State even though it will not be paid as quickly as we would wish.
I call Deputy Creed again.
I have asked the banks to give particular consideration to people with loans.
I have no alternative but to conclude that the Minister should consider his position as Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
There shall be no reaction from the Visitors Gallery.
It is an appalling vista that farmers will be asked to carry the can for the failure of the Minister to do a simple mathematical calculation.
Hear, hear.
There were 17,000 applicants. Reckoning an average payment of approximately €33,000 would have told the Minister what his Department Estimate required.
The Minister is in Cabinet and he and his colleagues are contemplating recapitalising the banks. Payment of the farm waste management scheme will recapitalise the banks, indirectly. I assure him that 99% of payments he will make out will go into banks.
Let us get down to brass tacks. I have had individual farmers sit opposite me with their wives, in tears because they did not have money to put bread on the table. The Minister should look at the range of other issues in which he is failing to make payments, in REPS and the farm investment scheme, in reduced payments in the suckler cow and the disadvantaged area schemes. The Minister has been an unmitigated disaster.
Hear, hear.
I ask the Minster, in the context of recapitalisation, to go back to the Cabinet room before it is too late and say that the €450 million required for this scheme will recapitalise the banks. It is not money for farmers but it will enable them to meet their requirements to continue in business.
I have one final question for the Minister. Will he meet the farmers' interest repayments? He stated the payments would be in the order of 40%, 40% and 20% over three years, which I reject as unacceptable. To make that more palatable, will he meet the contingent interest liabilities that farmers must pay in the meantime?
The Minister's final reply.
I totally reject what Deputy Creed said. I was told during the course of last year, before July, when €150 million had been provided for this scheme, that no further payments would be made between July and December. A sum of €150 million was provided in the Estimates at that time. Before the year was out we had allocated €414 million in payments and we have provided——-
The Minister should not blame the farmers.
Allow the Minister.
I am entitled to speak. I belong to a party that believes in free speech and I should be entitled to answer.
The Minister is late coming to that.
Allow the Minister, Deputy Creed.
During the course of last year I was told that payments would cease under the farm waste management scheme during the course of the summer.
They have.
If the Minister will yield, for a moment. I allowed Deputies to put their questions and they must let the Minister speak.
During the summer I was told payments under the scheme would cease. At that time we had spent €150 million. The Department put in another €32 million, a further €195 million of a Supplementary Estimate, which was regarded as an exceptional item of expenditure, and a further €30 million before the end of the year. We brought the payments practically up to date by the end of the year, amounting to €414 million——
As the Minister should.
During December more than 14,000 claims came in. We were told by plenty of people in this House that work would not be done and claims would not be made. We stated very clearly that payments would be honoured. The suckler cow scheme is a new stream of income that was paid out for the first time during December. Some €33 million was paid out before the end of the year and another €12 million has already been paid during January——
The Minister should deal with the farm waste scheme.
The Minister should deal with the question in front of him.
Deputy Creed brought up the supplementary measures. Some €313 million was also paid out during 2008 under REPS. All these commitments will be honoured.
