I agree that the suckler cow sector has seen growth in recent years. We are killing a lot more beef animals this year than last year. However, there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that a large number of suckler cows are not being put into calf and a large number are being slaughtered. There is a real concern that the decisions being made by farmers may reduce the size of the suckler cow herd. There is a lack of confidence in that sector, particularly due to last winter and the terrible spring. Even though beef prices were quite strong this year - they have decreased in the past couple of weeks - there is a confidence issue with regard to the suckler herd that needs to be addressed. We have very limited resources with which to do this but we are actively looking at it. We are expending €25 million in support services for suckler beef and beef. Some farmers were not happy with the €10 million data transfer scheme because they wanted something bigger, but the scheme was oversubscribed. Last year's suckler cow welfare scheme has a carry-over of €10 million. Calves born in the second half of last year are included in payments this year. A total of €5 million is being expended on beef discussion groups. The calculation is being correctly made that the carry-over of €10 million from last year will not be there next year. Effectively, this means a cut of €10 million in supports for the suckler sector. We are looking at ways in which we could provide some support to that sector, but people need to be realistic about the amount of funding we can provide given the savings we have to make. I agree with the sentiment and we will give some signals to the suckler sector in this budget.
The issue of mapping is a contentious one. Nobody likes getting a letter in the post saying that he or she has to give money back, particularly money from 2009. This is not our money; it is public money. If we do not claw it back the European Commission will do so, and with penalties. We debated at Question Time the difference between penalties and disallowances. The situation is the same across Europe; it is not just happening in Ireland. The fines or disallowances applied to countries on this particular issue of mapping are significant. For example, Greece was charged €104 million; France, €62 million; Italy, €111 million; and the United Kingdom, €58 million. As yet, no disallowances have been applied to Ireland on this issue. We have given an assurance to the Commission that we will have a resolution process in place before the end of the year in order to avoid those levels of disallowance. That means ensuring that money drawn down on land that was not eligible must be clawed back and returned. That is the required transparency.
The reason the mapping changes are coming to light now and not in 2009, when some of the mistakes were made, is that we have changed the mapping technology. A new system was introduced in July called Bing Maps which replaces images taken by aircraft flying at high levels, which produced maps that were relatively fuzzy but better than earlier images. The mapping is now done with satellite technology, which produces crystal-clear imagery of the land showing borders, ditches, forestry and scrub at a level of detail that was not possible before. The Commission can see the detail too. Instead of assessing one quarter of the parcels of land in Ireland each year the Commission has required us to look at every single land parcel across the country and to verify that the claims attached to those parcels are accurate, and if they are not accurate the Commission wants its money back. That is about as blunt as I can be about it. We have to accommodate that concern; otherwise, there will be disallowances and penalties and then everyone loses. They will lose on the double because not only do we have to return money that should not have been paid out but we must also pay the disallowance. I will happily answer any more detailed questions on that issue.
CAP implementation is a bigger concern to farmers than the budget. They are both of concern, but farmers really want to know how the single farm payment will be redistributed, what the rural development programme will look like, the extent of a new environmental scheme, how disadvantaged area scheme will be viewed in the future, given that we are redistributing single farm payments, and whether that should change how we look at disadvantaged area payments. These are the types of issue we need to finalise before the end of the year. There are other issues with regard to young farmers, new entrants, active farmers, whether a cap should be imposed and whether we are allowed to introduce one. We could have a long discussion on those options. I do not wish to distract the committee today unless the members wish to have that discussion. We will endeavour to provide all the current figures that the committee requested. Much of that information is available on the Department's website.
I refer to Deputy Pat Deering's questions about horse welfare and an amnesty. We cannot simply grant an amnesty. If the Deputy means we should allow horses that do not have appropriate microchips and passports to be slaughtered for human consumption, then that is out of the question. I know that was not what he meant. We are not going to allow a single kilo of horsemeat into the human food chain unless it has been rigorously tested. We need to defend our strong reputation. Following the lessons learned from the horsemeat scandal, we now have a single database for registered horses and this is being improved all the time. Some of the horses on the database are dead but the information has not been returned. The database management is improving all the time. We are moving towards a single issuing body for passports and microchipping. We have learned some real lessons from the crisis and the system has really tightened up. We will not have an amnesty to allow people to slaughter horses inappropriately. We have considered approaching this problem purely from the point of view of horse welfare. I will not reward anyone financially for having a large number of horses that are not microchipped.
However, if people have horses that they cannot feed, they have no market for those horses and there is likely to be a welfare problem as a result, we must and will act on that, and we are willing to allocate funding to ensure it is done in the most appropriate way. Whether the animals have to be slaughtered humanely or given appropriate treatment, it will be done. We have a welfare phone line that was used very effectively during the fodder crisis and is still open and functioning. Where people cannot afford to feed their animals and have no outlet for those animals, I urge them not to do something crazy such as shooting them in the yard. Instead, they should give us a call. We have the resources to help them if necessary.
Horse welfare is an issue of great concern to me. We have a responsibility to ensure systems are in place to prevent mistreatment and abuse. Last year, some 24,000 horses were slaughtered in Irish factories, while the number to date this year is approximately 6,000. That decline has come about because of an entirely changed regime and approach in regard to the slaughtering of horses. An important factor is that many of the facilities that slaughter cattle no longer want anything to do with slaughtering horses because of the reputational issues that have arisen. We are examining this matter closely and talking to all stakeholders.
Deputy Deering also referred to suckler cows. I accept that there is a risk the numbers will continue to drop. What we will be able to do in this budget will not dramatically change the business case for keeping sucklers, but it might give a signal that it is a sector we wish to prioritise in the context of the limited moneys we have at our disposal. I cannot give the Deputy the exact detail of how it will work, but I would welcome feedback and suggestions from members as to how we can best use the limited funds available to us in safeguarding a sector in need of support.
