Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine debate -
Tuesday, 19 Jun 2018

Rural Development Programme: Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine

Chairman

We are now back in public session. I remind members and witnesses to ensure their mobile phones are completely turned off. I welcome and thank the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Creed, to the committee to discuss the rural development programme expenditure. I also welcome his officials. This programme provides integral support to Ireland's rural and farming communities. Today's discussion will mainly focus on the budget for the rural development programme and the commitments given under the six schemes in same.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence to this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of a long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House, or any official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I call on the Minister to make his opening statement.

Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Deputy Michael Creed)

I am very pleased to meet with the committee and to update it on a review of spending under the rural development programme carried out by my Department.

As members are aware, there is an allocation of some €4 billion under the current programme, with €2.19 billion of this coming from European Union funds and the rest from the Exchequer. The programme runs up to the end of 2020, though some existing multi-annual commitments may run beyond this date as I will explain later.

The substantial investment required over the lifetime of the programme will help to underpin continuing growth and development in rural Ireland and forms part of the vision for strengthened rural economies and communities as contained in the Government’s recently launched Project Ireland 2040. The range of measures and supports available under the rural development programme is extensive. These include advice, training, payments for public goods, support for on-farm investment, support for animal welfare, initiatives to encourage innovation, partnerships and membership of producer groups and support for local projects under Leader. Delivering on such a diverse programme is challenging and I am delighted to say that Ireland is performing very well in this regard.

Of all European Union member states, we are second overall in terms of drawdown of European Union funds to date. Our drawdown of European Union funds, at 53%, is well above the European Union average of 33% and we are one of only two member states to have passed the 50% mark. Our reputation in Europe is 'to leave no euro behind' and I am confident that this will continue under the current rural development programme.

At the outset of the rural development programme, indicative allocations were included in the financial plan, in line with identified priorities. It is against these allocations that my Department conducted its review, using expenditure to date and best estimates of future projections to determine whether the entire budget would be spent. They found that some measures will meet their allocation, others will exceed it and still more will not spend it in full. I will start by updating on the overall budgetary situation before commenting on the main individual schemes.

It is expected that almost all of the entire €4 billion allocation will be spent by the end of 2020 with some spend in 2021. However, under European Union regulations governing the programme, funds for multi-annual commitments entered into by the end of 2020 may be claimed up to the end of 2023. Rural development programme spending is, of course, also subject to the annual Estimates process and budgetary rules. Based on current projected spending across all schemes under the programme, this required carryover to the next rural development programme to cover our commitments under our multi-annual schemes will be €105 million. In other words, we are currently committed to spending €105 million over and above the €4 billion allocation to the rural development programme. Added to this will be a possible areas of natural constraint, ANC, allocation of €227 million for 2021, bringing the total carryover required to €332 million.

Transitional funding arrangements are the norm between programming periods and an indicative figure of €637 million was included in this rural development programme to cover commitments from the previous one. Increasing the commitments to be funded as part of these transitional arrangements would not be the prudent thing to do in my opinion, given the different circumstances which apply to the next proposed programme, for a number of reasons. Firstly, the transitional funding arrangements to be put in place between this programme and the next are not yet decided at European Union level. More important though, the recently published multi-annual financial framework proposal to 2027 indicates a cut to the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, budget, under the impact of Brexit and competing priorities. In light of this the introduction of new measures or entrants to current schemes is not possible at this stage.

Turning to individual schemes and supports, I will address those which have attracted the most commentary in terms of original allocation, participation and projected spending. I am, of course, open to questions on other measures within the programme but for now will deal with these which appear to be of most interest.

I will start with our highly successful green low-carbon agri-environmental scheme, GLAS, which is expected to deliver significant environmental and climate friendly benefits as a result of farmer action and engagement. When GLAS was opened, it was hoped at the time that 50,000 farmers would join the scheme and that milestone was reached sooner than expected in December 2017. The indicative budget at the time of €1.4 billion included an amount of €390 million for legacy agri-environmental schemes under the previous rural development programme, RDP, the rural environment protection scheme, REPS, and the agri-environment options schemes, AEOS. This was to honour our commitments to those farmers who were participants in these schemes. The total expected combined spend on GLAS and these measures is €1.4 billion, as originally indicated, and no savings are projected. As of today, over 99% of all eligible GLAS participants are fully up to date with their GLAS payments and weekly pay runs are continuing.

The beef data and genomics programme is an ambitious and groundbreaking approach to enhancing the sustainability credentials of the beef herd. The programme had an estimated cost of €300 million. I reopened it in 2017 to maximise participation and I am more than satisfied that 24,600 farmers have joined. The expected spend during the lifetime of the programme is €290 million. Knowledge transfer is a key priority of this rural development programme. Indicative funding of €100 million was allocated in the RDP to participate in knowledge transfer groups. As with all such initiatives, it is demand-led. Based on the current levels of uptake of 19,000 farmers, the expected total spend is €69 million. The upskilling of these farmers will be a significant achievement, with ongoing and positive implications for both the farmers and the sectors involved.

The targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS, is a grant-aided scheme which provides much-needed capital investment for farming enterprises. There has been some concern that the entire allocation of €395 million for TAMS will not be spent, as there were savings in the annual budget in the early years. However, this trend has reversed and expenditure is now running at an average of over €1 million a week for the past eight months. There are almost 10,000 existing approvals from my Department for farmers, on which funding has to be drawn down by the approved applicants. Some of the early approvals have started to expire and the first of the three-year approvals will begin to expire later this year, which means that the budgetary position will become clearer. The new one-year approval system which was introduced in January 2017 will assist with the accurate assessment of outstanding commitments. TAMS continues to be open to new applicants, with significant interest shown, and I am working on the assumption that the entire allocation will be fully spent over the lifetime of the scheme.

The allocation under the RDP financial plan under the organic farming scheme is €56 million over the lifetime of the programme. It aims to achieve a figure of 62,000 ha under organic production. The scheme has proved to be more popular than first expected and, based on current projections, the total spend under the scheme is expected to be €66 million, with approximately 72,000 ha of land under organic production. I have also made changes to the rural development programme where need has arisen, including the introduction of new schemes which have also required additional expenditure. The main example is the sheep welfare scheme where I added an additional €100 million in national funds to the RDP budget, with a view to accommodating all sheep farmers, should they wish to join. Based on the current uptake of 20,000 applicants with 2 million ewes, the total projected spend is €80 million, which represents a substantial investment and commitment to the sheep sector. I have also provided an extra €25 million for areas of natural constraint, ANC, farmers this year, again from national resources.

Another programme which has attracted intense interest is the hen harrier programme which seeks to save one of Ireland’s most endangered birds. Both it and the freshwater pearl mussel scheme which aims to protect the critically endangered freshwater pearl mussel are two designated European innovation partnership, EIP, projects. A budget of €35 million was originally indicated for both the hen harrier programme and the freshwater pearl mussel project, with an anticipated allocation of €25 million for the hen harrier programme and €10 million for the freshwater pearl mussel scheme. That is what we expect to spend. Two impressive project teams are in place and I look forward with interest to the results of these collaborative efforts across the advisory, research and farming communities.

As members are aware, the rural development programme also provides funding for the Leader programme, to the amount of €250 million. The Leader programme is implemented by the Department of Rural and Community Development under the Minister, Deputy Michael Ring, and it is my understanding it expects the full allocation to be spent over the duration of the programme.

This has been a brief overview of RDP spending. As members are well aware, there is a perception that spare funds are available to open new measures under the programme. As this review shows, nothing could be further from the truth. Our commitments, as outlined, are already such that they will require an allocation under the next programme. I am keeping the matters under ongoing review to ensure the entire budget will be used and that RDP objectives will be met. I thank committee members for their attention and look forward to the discussion.

Chairman

I thank the Minister. I call Deputies Charlie McConalogue, Jackie Cahill and Martin Kenny in that order.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I thank the Minister and his officials for coming. We should not have to be here today.

As the Minister will recall, in March we had a debate in the Dáil during Private Members' business to discuss the provision of support for the suckler cow sector. We also put forward a motion to require the Minister to carry out a review of the rural development programme to establish what the spending was and, in particular, what level of underspending there might be. Terms of reference were given to the Minister which we sought to have included as part of the review. The motion was passed by a strong majority in the Dáil. It required the Minister to come back within two months with the findings of a review of the rural development programme and outlined the terms of reference for such a review. The Minister failed to conduct such a review, come back within two months and comply with the terms of reference outlined in the motion, as passed. We were then left with little choice. I asked the committee to require the Minister to attend to assess where we were with the rural development programme and, once and for all, address the issues the motion required him to address but which he had ignored and failed to do. In some ways, I am not surprised because he has been ducking and diving on the issue of the rural development programme. I refer to how the Government has or, as I put it to the Minister in many cases, has not, been following up on the commitments and promises made by him and his predecessor as Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

We can see it when we look at GLAS. The then Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Simon Coveney, on the opening of the scheme on 23 February 2015, announced in his press release - it was backed up in all subsequent comments - how a total of €1.4 billion had been allocated over the lifetime of the programme. It allowed for a standard package of up to €5,000 for eligible farmers. In the additional notes at the end of the press release, for editors and those assessing what it was he was promising, the then Minister also indicated how the €1.4 billion had been allocated for GLAS over the lifetime of the programme to 2020. It was very specific. If we look across the agricultural media at the time, whether it was The Farmers Journal, the headline on Agriland, The Farming Independent or the response from the various farming organisations, the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association, INHFA, the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, ICMSA, the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association, ICSA, or Macra na Feirme, they all welcomed the €1.4 billion the Government was committing to GLAS to be spent up to 2020. The reality has been entirely different. What is clear at this stage is that by 2022, when all current participants in GLAS have worked their way through and completed their five years, less than €1 billion will have been spent. The Minister, Deputy Michael Creed, is here to tell and enlighten us that, in fact, of the €1.4 billion, which the then Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, was so crystal clear was specifically for the programme up to 2020, which farmers and their representatives accepted in good faith, €400 million was for the REPS and the AEOS. That is what he is telling us in 2018, three and a half years into GLAS.

At no stage did he, the Government or any official in the Department, acting on his behalf, seek to correct the record whenever the agri-media and farming organisations welcomed the fact that the Government had committed to a €1.4 billion spend on GLAS. The Minister has tried to duck and dive on the issue since he was appointed. He has tried to ignore the fact that this promise and commitment were made and that this was the basis on which farmers were operating and what they were expecting. It is now clear that the allocation will be €1 billion. The bad faith shown by the Government in what it promised farmers and the fact that the Minister was bluffing them are being exposed. He was getting headlines at the time and made a promise on which he had no intention of delivering. He has tried to stick to that fallacy up until now. He has tried to sideline it by asking what are we talking about and stating the allocation was only ever going to be €1 billion and that €400 million was for the REPS and the AEOS. That was not said at the time, nor has it been said since then. It is unacceptable that the Government would treat farmers in that way.

When the beef data and genomics programme was published by the previous Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, it was promised that it would facilitate 35,000 farmers and that the spend would be up to €300 million. It was expected that 35,000 farmers would benefit from it. Some 24,500 farmers have signed up to the programme and the Minister declared in his opening statement that he was very satisfied that they had taken it up. It compares to a figure of 50,000 farmers who availed of the previous suckler cow welfare scheme. The previous Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, committed to a figure of 35,000 farmers, or 11,000 more than the number who have signed up to the programme. How on earth did the Minister get his figures so wrong for the level of spending under the beef data and genomics programme and the number of farmers who could be accommodated? Was it that once again he was trying to seek a few headlines to hide his embarrassment about the way in which the Government was failing to cater for the many suckler cow farmers who had previously availed of the suckler cow welfare scheme? Only half of those who availed of the suckler cow welfare scheme are availing of the beef data and genomics programme.

The Minister has indicated that there can be a carry-over of costs from the end of 2020 into the next rural development programme. He has indicated that it could be of the order of €105 million. Specifically, bearing it mind that it was introduced in three tranches, how many GLAS participants will still be in the scheme post the end of 2020? How much will be carried over into the next rural development programme? I did not see a reference to this in the Minister's opening statement. The bottom line is that the Minister is telling us that the allocation of €4 billion outlined as part of the 2014 to 2020 rural development programme will be fully spent and that there will be no spare money available. He has indicated that there will be an underspend in certain areas but not in others. His bottom line is that there will be no spare money to be taken from the allocation. That exposes the fibs farmers were told about what they could expect under the individual schemes published by the Minister, particularly GLAS and the beef data and genomics programme. They have been let down in terms of what they had been led to expect. The Government has not delivered for them. They are out of pocket in a way they had not expected and the schemes have not delivered the income the Minister promised they would deliver. Unfortunately, that is the bottom line and the reality with which we have to deal. Having tried to avoid this scenario and the fact that he did not come back to us on the motion passed in the Dáil, this is the reality we face. I would like an explanation from him as to why the Government took that approach and why he tried to bluff farmers on what he was going to deliver for them. They have been let down by him and the Government.

I would also like the Minister to indicate how he envisages the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS, unfolding. There is a significant underspend. Obviously, it will be weighted towards the final years of the rural development programme. There was not much detail in the Minister's presentation on how he envisaged it working its way out. How can he be so sure at this time that the TAMS element of the rural development programme will be drawn down in full?

Deputy Jackie Cahill

I thank the Minister for his presentation on the rural development programme. I will not go over the ground covered by Deputy Charlie McConalogue. It is clear that the Minister has an allocation of €4 billion that was envisaged to be spent between 2014 and 2020. Doing the sums, I calculate that €3.32 billion will be spent. The sums are accurate and when we consider the individual schemes, there will be a shortfall. The amount is significantly less than the €4 billion that was headlined when the programme was announced.

I will focus on a few schemes, beginning with the sheep welfare scheme. In the previous session we met officials from Meat Industry Ireland and the Department to discuss the issue of sheep tagging. Under the rural development programme a sum of €100 million was allocated for the sheep welfare scheme. The Minister indicated in his presentation that it was envisaged only €80 million of that allocation would be spent. There is, therefore, ample headroom to pay for the tags for sheep farmers up to 2020. The point was made strongly in the previous session that the primary producer was being asked to carry all of the costs of the traceability schemes. They have been told that there will be added benefits for them in the future. The Minister has the opportunity to do something practical for sheep farmers by carrying the cost of the tagging regime up to 2020, after which we could sit down and argue about it again. We cannot say that traceability is bad. I hope it will bring benefits to the sheep sector, but I put that in brackets. All of the costs are being carried by the primary producer. As I said, there is definitely ample headroom under the programme for the Minister to carry the cost of the tagging regime up to 2020. That initiative would be most welcome for the sheep sector and it could be done without great difficulty.

Up to now no money has been spent under the hen harrier scheme. We have been told that the first payments will issue in 2019. In my time in politics I have never seen the value of an asset being taken away in the way it has in the designation of this land. While it is welcome that a scheme has been put in place, we are extremely critical that no money has been paid to date. There are farmers in my constituency who still have not been accepted into the scheme which will be judged on whether it restores the capital value of the land. Unfortunately, it will not do so. While it is welcome, additional funding for it must be put in place to restore the capital value that has been taken from farmers. This issue will not go away. In my time in politics I am not aware of any other decision taken that completely removed the capital value of land from farmers. Such land with the potential to engage in forestry was worth €4,000 to €4,500 an acre.

Owing to the blanket ban on forestry on hen harrier designated land, that land is now virtually worthless. I hope the scheme will bring some recompense, but it is a long way short of restoring the capital value of the land. Farmers are entitled to have its capital value restored and the only way that can be done is through a properly funded scheme, but the €25 million committed in the 2014-20 window will go nowhere near compensating the farmers involved. There is a significant amount of land involved, some of which is in the Minister's constituency. The farmers involved have been seriously discriminated against. The scheme has been promised for a long time. I hope some money will be spent in 2019, but it is not nearly adequate to restore the capital value of the land. That is how the scheme will be measured. If the capital value of the land is restored, we will know that the scheme has been a success; if not, it will have failed to honour the commitments made. I do not see how it will restore the capital value of farmers' assets.

There has to be a speedier way for farmers who have essential work to carry out, whether silage slabs or whatever else, to have their applications processed. We were told that applications would be dealt with speedily, but that is not happening. I know several farmers who urgently needed to get a silage slab down in May after the bad spring and found it impossible to have their applications processed in time to do the work before the first cut silage. The system needs to be improved.

For two years I have had a problem with the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS. Traditionally, farmers purchased equipment through the co-operatives, but they have been deemed to have broken the rules of eligibility for TAMS. That issue has not been sorted out and there are several individuals who are seriously out of pocket because of it. There is no hint of any indiscretion on their part; the co-op did what it always should do and help its supplier members. It never had any problem qualifying for grant aid in the past, but the farmers concerned still have several outstanding issues. The co-op would have financed the purchase of the milk tank for them and they would have repaid the cost over several years through their milk cheques. This system worked well in the past, but, for whatever reason, this time under the criteria they have deemed to be ineligible for the scheme. That issue has not been resolved. I have raised it on numerous occasions with officials and farmers are getting extremely annoyed. They believe they are being victimised again by the small print. I urge the Minister to resolve the issue once and for all because the farmers concerned should have received grant aid for the purchase of milk tanks. A few spoke, too, about running into trouble with the hire purchase of machinery. In my constituency milk tanks are the primary issue. If farmers are involved in lease arrangements for machinery, they should be catered for too. That issue needs to be ironed out.

My colleague has highlighted the underspend with reference to what was advertised at the launch of the scheme. There can be modifications made to the three schemes. There is scope under the sheep welfare scheme to cater for the tagging problem. The hen harrier issue will not go away. The landowners in the areas affected need payments immediately and a scheme that will restore the capital value of their land.

Deputy Martin Kenny

I thank the Minister for his presentation which contains many summary statistics which can hide individual difficulties. He spoke first about the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, because it is the one most farmers have had issues and problems with. The Department has acknowledged that there have been difficulties in the past few months and payments to farmers have been slow. Granted, they are in a minority, but they are individual families who have bills to meet and payments to make and find it difficult when they cannot receive their payments. Some farmers have still not received their GLAS payments and are being told that it is not their fault, that the fault is on the side of the Department and that the issue has not been ironed out because there are various problems with information technology, IT, systems or whatever else. We hear this all of the time and farmers keep coming back to us. I have heard the Department tell them that and they are not making it up. It is the reality and I am not sure how it can be dealt with. Perhaps there are too many delivery models of IT systems, not one overall system. I do not know what the problem is, but it needs to be addressed.

It was envisaged that 50,000 farmers would receive a maximum payment of €5,000 per farmer under GLAS, but that has not been the outcome. The big issue in politics is setting out one's intentions and trying to get the outcome to match them. We acknowledge that it is not always easy to do that, but at the same time we are left with a certain underspend under GLAS because farmers will not receive the amount of money they expected to receive. I acknowledge that there is an overlap with the rural environmental protection scheme, REPS, and the agri-environment options scheme, AEOS. There are approximately 2,000 farmers still in the AEOS which will run out very soon and for a time they will be in no scheme. Can these programmes be extended for the short period until a new environmental scheme is put in place? They have finished the AEOS, cannot enter the REPS or GLAS and are stuck.

There have been problems with the beef data genomics scheme, but there are fewer farmers engaged in it than anticipated. When that happens, we expect a certain amount of money not to be spent. One of the questions asked in the document supplied to us by the Department is whether money can be reallocated between schemes and the answer is yes. It takes thinking, but it can be reallocated. It needs to be because there are farmers who are under pressure under many of the schemes. There will be money left over, as Deputy Charlie McConalogue and others said, and we need to find a way to deal with the matter.

The suckler cow sector, about which we are talking, is the one under most pressure. The Minister will acknowledge that the recent report from Teagasc on farm incomes showed that they were going up, but it was all in the dairy sector. Suckler cow and sheep farmers continue to be under the most pressure and are the ones who depend most on the schemes. The beef data genomics scheme would benefit greatly from being married to some element of a suckler cow scheme to ensure we could do something to enhance quality. The beef data genomics scheme aims to enhance the quality of calves through breeding, but that can also be done through husbandry.

It was said a certain amount of money would be spent under the sheep welfare scheme, but the amount will fall short by approximately €20 million. We heard two presentations on tagging which is the way forward and has to happen. Everyone understands this and the majority of sheep farmers are happy enough with it. They are under so much financial pressure that it is another cost, unless they can see some way to be compensated or assisted in meeting it. The Department has stated it will give €50 per farmer for the first year of the scheme. If it could be added to the sheep welfare scheme, the farmer could receive a little more. It would help to give farmers security. The suckler cow and sheep sectors need a statement from the Department and the Government that they believe in and want to support them. There is an opportunity there to do so.

The Leader programme was mentioned at the very end of the presentation. Some €250 million goes through that programme. I have had this out with the Minister, Deputy Ring. I believe a tiny proportion of that funding has been spent to date. To be frank, these low numbers arise from the reorganisation. It was brought to county councils and every bottle washer that could be found in the country was given a job that had something to do with the Leader programme. It ended up meaning nobody can get money from it. There are community projects all over the country that are frustrated in this regard. It is time to go back and look at this again. The old model delivered very well for communities around the country. People could find individual cases with problems but they were very much in the minority compared with the excellent job done. We can compare the way Leader funding was delivered to communities and the way they benefitted from that with the current state of the programme, which is a complete mess. I appeal to the Minister to speak to the Minister for Rural and Community Development, Deputy Ring, about this and go back to the drawing board. They should work out a scheme to ensure the next round of funding from Leader is not delivered in the same absolutely stupid way.

We can have all the lovely ideas in the world but if they do not work, somebody must stand up and say so. Leader does not work. I travel around the country to speak to people in various county development companies and they say it is not working for them. There are too many rules and regulations and too many people have to look over everything. It ends with nobody getting any money from a programme that is simply not working. That should be acknowledged. We are not interested in beating up or blaming anybody but finding a solution. The Leader programme has brought many benefits to communities in the past but the current programme has brought only frustration. That should be acknowledged and we must ensure it works in future.

Deputy Michael Creed

I thank Deputies McConalogue, Cahill and Martin Kenny for their questions. I will try to deal with them all in sequence. I am a little surprised by Deputy McConalogue's opening remarks referring to the Private Members' motion and trying somehow to imply that I am reluctant to be here. I am attending this meeting because this is the vehicle, as I understand it, agreed through the Business Committee. The Government does not control the committee and I am happy to account to it in the context of the Dáil motion. It must be an uncomfortable truth for Deputy McConalogue that the Dáil motion was predicated on support for the suckler sector coming from an alleged underspend in the rural development programme. It is clearly the case that the underspend is a myth, and the Deputy has continued trying to perpetuate that myth. The facts clearly demonstrate-----

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

The Minister is the one who is perpetuating-----

Chairman

Allow the Minister to speak. I will allow the Deputy to contribute again later.

Deputy Michael Creed

The facts clearly indicate there is no underspend and that the opposite is the case. There is an overspend of at least €105 million and if we include areas of natural constraint, it could be significantly higher, perhaps as high as €227 million. If the Deputy's support for the suckler sector is predicated on an underspend in the rural development programme, God help the suckler sector because there is no underspend.

A number of specific issues were raised. It is said that the devil can cite scripture for his own purpose and I will play devil's advocate for that reason. Not for the first time, Deputy McConalogue alluded to a press statement issued by the former Minister, Deputy Coveney, in which he announced the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS. If the Deputy has the document in front of him, he will see that the Minister also stated that the scheme had a maximum of €5,000, with a GLAS+ top-up of €2,000. It was estimated there would initially be 30,000 participants, with an additional 20,000 participants, leaving 50,000 people in the scheme. That figure has been achieved. That is clearly the extent of the commitment. The Deputy seems to be implying that for some reason the rural development programme should not honour the contractual commitments that existed in other agri-environment schemes, including the agri-environment options scheme and the rural environment protection scheme, as the carryover from the previous scheme. They were very substantial financial carryover obligations, as I mentioned in my opening remarks. We originally estimated the expenditure would be in the region of €630 million and the outturn is showing a figure of just under €600 million. The carried over liability is approximately €599 million. There was no uncertainty whatever in the Minister's statement. There would be 50,000 participants, with a payment to a maximum of €5,000 and a top-up for those eligible for GLAS+ of €2,000. If the Deputy quotes from a statement, he might quote from all of it in the interests of accuracy.

The Deputy asked a number of other questions, including on the beef data and genomics programme, BDGP. We reopened the BDGP and approved all applications. No one was turned away. We had greater ambition for the scheme but it is true that there were significant headwinds. If I recall, the Deputy was not behind the door in encouraging those headwinds against the scheme and some of the farm organisations were equally critical. They subsequently became champions of the scheme and campaigned to open it again. The campaign against the detail of the scheme caused confusion about its merits, at the very least. We would have liked to have had more participants but when the scheme was reopened, the number of applications did not match our ambition. Currently, there are 24,600 applicants. It is a good scheme, which will deliver for the beef industry in terms of carbon efficiency, profitability, etc. We opened it and approved all applications.

Deputy McConalogue asked a specific question on GLAS carryover post-2020. My information is that this would refer primarily to GLAS 3 applicants, of which there are approximately 12,000. The cost of that carryover post-2020 will be in the region of €50 million.

The Deputy also raised a question about the targeted agricultural modernisation schemes, TAMS. We have a total outstanding commitment of more than €100 million for 10,000 farmers who have current approvals issued but the work has not been completed or the Department has not been notified that a claim is to be submitted. We moved from a three-year approval process to a process of 12-month approval. With plant, the approval process is six months in duration. This gives a better capacity to track who is doing what. The first of the three-year approvals expires towards the end of this year. This will give us a better opportunity to profile the demand on the expenditure. We have just concluded an application round for which interest was substantial. We recently closed tranche 10 and it is anticipated there will be 20 tranches under TAMS, each lasting three months. We anticipate significant demand for capital investment of the type envisaged under TAMS and there are various categories, ranging from low-emission slurry spreading to young farmers to tillage. There is a list of six or seven headings under which approval will be made. Two further tranches will be opened this year.

I take Deputy Cahill's point about delays in approvals. To be honest, it is difficult to envisage an application being submitted in the current tranche, which has only just closed, asking for approval to put down a slab for first-cut silage. There is the old Irish saying "Ní hé lá na gaoithe lá na scolb", or it is not the windy day you thatch the roof. There is a period in which an application is processed.

We make every effort to do so but to be applying in the current tranche for slab for first-cut silage is a bit ambitious. The departmental staff will try to accommodate people in most cases.

Deputy Cahill raised the issue of sheep tagging and EID, which is the best available technology in the context of traceability, market access and food safety. We now have the FSA report. I have never shrunk from saying there is a cost but there is also a labour saving device and it is much more effective for traceability than the current regime. Transposing 13-digit numbers onto despatch documents is not conducive to accuracy. We have engaged with a lot of stakeholders around all these issues and I am convinced it is the right thing to do and will deliver for the industry in the shape of market access and other gains.

Deputy Cahill also raised the issue of the hen harrier scheme. I have designated land in my constituency so I understand his concerns. I am delighted to have reinstated a scheme which was dropped by a previous Administration in 2008 or 2009 at the height of the crash. I never said it would be the sole vehicle to address the issue raised by Deputy Cahill as there is a blanket ban on afforestation, which is the subject of a long and tortuously slow threat response plan being delivered by the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Department of Arts Heritage and the Gaeltacht. I have been in contact with the relevant Minister and there has been engagement with stakeholders recently that might see some potential for afforestation in some areas, and though the details are yet to be spelled out I have always said a combination of both things could deliver a comprehensive response for landowners. The Deputy also asked about TAMS assistance for milk tanks. TAMS has always been a form of grant aid for purchase and that is the problem. I know there is a tradition in the area of co-operative involvement.

Deputy Kenny referred to GLAS and we have engaged at length on GLAS payments. While there are issues in the Department, the overwhelming majority of cases where payment has not been made are cases where we await the submission of documentation from clients. There are a few cases that might have come through appeals processes or where there were changes in actions on particular plots and they all require resolution by the Department but the Department is working through payment details.

The Deputy spoke about an underspend but there is, in fact, a substantial anticipated overspend in the rural development programme of €160 million. People whose membership of the AEOS scheme is expiring had the opportunity to transfer into GLAS but because the rural development funding is overspent there is now no opportunity to reopen the scheme. There is a hierarchy in terms of qualifying and in terms of the environmental assets which we prioritise and we told people in previous schemes that they could switch over. With the funding now having been committed, however, we would have to take funding from other areas to reopen GLAS. Due to the overspend of €105 million and a possible areas of natural constraint, ANC, overspend of €227 million, the latitude is not there now.

I have dealt with the suckler cow scheme. Our shared objective is to support the beef sector and somebody referred to the recent Teagasc farm incomes data showing two faces to agriculture - one the very successful commercial dairy side, and to a lesser extent tillage, the other the low-income livestock and beef sector. The challenge for the next rural development programme is to find the optimal way to support that sector and I look forward to engaging with this committee on the post-2020 CAP in this context. The detail of the new schemes will be worked on in the immediate period ahead.

Deputy Kenny asked about the Leader programme. I do not want to trespass on other ministerial areas and we effectively act as a postbox in relation to the Leader programme. The funding comes through the rural development programme but it is spent and organised by the Department of Rural and Community Development. I know from speaking to Leader groups in my own constituency that it has been particularly slow but I suggest it is not so different from previous rural development programmes, which cranked up slowly and then took off. I understand that about €5 million of the €250 million has already been spent, although I may be wrong. There was a substantial reorganisation of the Leader groups because, with less funding being available, they wanted to reduce overhead costs and concentrate whatever scarce resources were available on projects at the coalface. A lot of the reorganisation took longer than people anticipated but it has now been concluded and in my own area I have seen the beginning of projects coming through the pipeline and getting funding. I suspect that will accelerate in the months ahead.

Senator Michelle Mulherin

I recall the last round of Leader funding when the then Minister, Phil Hogan, had to redistribute funding from certain Leader companies that did not spend their money. There were problems and some money was not being spent. Some Leader companies even went to the wall, including one of the three in my area. The money needs to be spent.

Earlier, we were dealing with electronic tagging of sheep.

I know the Minister is aware of this, but farmers are not too impressed at being asked to pay for this. I wanted to make just one point about the equity of this, and I made it when representatives of the meat industry and Department officials came before the committee. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland is issuing its audit report, which points to deficiencies in Department inspections of factories and the jobs the factories might do. One can talk about inspections and paperwork and so on. The reality is that this move will benefit everyone, but the only people paying the €50 the Minister is talking about, which, wherever that money comes from, is taxpayers' money, is the farmer, ultimately, because it is a flat fee for him or her. There is therefore a question about the equity of this and fees being piled on farmers again. While €50 is not the biggest sum in the world, it all adds up. As I said earlier, we have sheep farmers where I am situated and we have suckler cow farmers, and they all say the next generation is not interested. This just compounds it and, of course, we all know about the extended winter we had.

I wish to make a few points about the beef data and genomics programme. As the Minister knows, a few weeks ago, we had the Irish Charolais Cattle Society and the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation, ICBF, before the committee. I think everyone in general agreed with the merits of a more scientific approach to breeding and looking at genetic information that can improve breeding. That makes sense. I think there are certain disputes over how the programme is operating, especially on the part of the Irish Charolais Cattle Society. More to the point, seeing as the ICBF plays a pivotal part in the rolling out of the beef data and genomics programme and a commitment was given at the time that there would be a review of the programme by the Minister of the day after a number of years, I think concerns were raised. My understanding is that the gist of this was that it is a very good idea but there is not enough genetic data or information at present to make the star ratings mandatory. One point the ICBF made well is that on its board, which of course existed before this scheme came into being, the cattle breeders have a very small representation and feel they are not getting an input into the way in which that ship is being steered. The witnesses at that meeting made some good points, bearing in mind that these cattle breeding societies also have an interest in excellence in breeding. They raised some legitimate questions.

Going back to the sheep again, the Minister is basically saying there are no underspends in any scheme - nothing.

Deputy Michael Creed

No. For the sake of accuracy, I am not saying there is no underspend in specific schemes. However, when the cumulative impact of underspends and overspends is taken into account, there is an overspend of €105 million.

Senator Michelle Mulherin

The request is that, rather than the €50 per farmer, the Department would increase the payment under the sheep welfare scheme.

The Minister has more or less dealt with the issue of GLAS. He mentioned the option that farmers on AEOS had to move to GLAS, but the reality now under AEOS 3 is that farmers are leaving it and will probably be three years without getting a payment under a scheme or something similar. There are also new farmers who are not getting any GLAS payments. Is there a possibility to reopen GLAS in a limited fashion or do something similar with this balancing act the Department is doing? Again, this would be in the interests of fairness.

Perhaps this next issue is very broad. Freshwater pearl mussels are the bane of my life. I do not think they are very rare at all. Every time we go to build a road or bridge in County Mayo we are stopped because of freshwater pearl mussels. Fifty per cent of our land is designated. I think wild mushrooms are now rarer than freshwater pearl mussels because the latter are all over the county. Money is being given for this scheme that is in place, which I presume is co-funded by Europe along with the Government. Is the trade-off that we stick with these designations and we cannot build bridges or roads? Is this really what this money is about? Many people listening in who live in urban areas, when they think of designated land, tend to think it is virgin land or something. We have a national primary road either side of which is designated. The road itself is in a designated area, so we cannot move and are being crippled all the time. Something must be done, and I will keep doing whatever I must do to try to change this along the western seaboard, particularly in County Mayo. Many of us will have to come together or else rural Ireland is going nowhere. It does not matter how much money we pump into Leader or this, that and the other; if we cannot get a road or bridge built, where are we going? What is the situation in respect of the freshwater pearl mussel? Can the Minister give me a little more information about it? As I said, they are as common as muck in Mayo. I was told not so many years ago that fellas used to come over from Scotland and take them out of the river and no one knew what they were. I also read somewhere, as my atennae are raised, that a freshwater pearl mussel fetched something like €700,000, so perhaps we should be all in the rivers looking for them. What I am saying is that people want to be responsible-----

Deputy Michael Creed

There is gold in them there rivers.

Senator Michelle Mulherin

We might have a flurry of people going into the rivers now. I would just like to understand better what is going on here because, humour aside, it is a serious problem in County Mayo and I know elsewhere with designated land.

Senator Paul Daly

I welcome the Minister. Most of the issues in his statement have been covered by previous speakers, so I will not go over old ground. I will ask some specific questions and perhaps get a little bit of an insight as to how this whole system is predicted by the Department, and I say this particularly because the system is very predictable. No one is standing over anyone with a big stick saying, "You predicted you would spend X amount on a scheme and then there were only half the predicted applicants." One cannot hoodwink or force farmers into applying for schemes, so it is only natural that in some cases, possibly all cases, there will be an underspend. None of us has a crystal ball. Conditions change. Farmers with the best intentions might apply for a scheme today and, if their circumstances change, not apply tomorrow. In the Department's thinking, when it comes to us with these headline figures, how are they arrived at? What mechanism, if any, or contingency plan, is there within the Department if the scheme does not achieve the predicted number of applicants and the Department can see an underspend coming down the line? What is plan B in such a case? The money has been set to one side, but one sees six months or a year in advance of the end of a scheme that it has not had the expected uptake and the Department will not reach the figure. What happens then with the budgeted money for that scheme?

I would also like to know how many approved TAMS schemes were not carried out now that some of them would have reached their deadline date to have the work completed. They were approved. I do not want the overall number of applicants but the number of applicants who were approved and have now come to their completed deadline and were not taken up. I know there are a number of such cases. I have some experience on the building side of the matter. This is probably a side issue, but do the Minister and his accountants here from the Department think that the terms and conditions of many of the schemes, TAMS in particular, and the standards required to achieve the grants are over the top? When the applicants, having applied and been approved, then sit down and start doing their costings, they see they may be better off going and doing the project and forgetting about the bloody TAMS grant altogether. They see they can probably achieve as much for less output of their own money and forget about the State money they would have got.

I have already asked how the Department comes up with the headline figures. Deputy Cahill has already mentioned the hen harrier scheme. The Minister is saying €25 million is allocated for the scheme, but if one sits down and does the sums on it, one finds that, if one had 100% take-up from every eligible qualifying stakeholder out there and they all achieved the maximum payment, which is not possible because of the way in which the scheme is set up and the tick-box exercise that must be done, it would come to €17.5 million.

If we had 100% take-up on the maximum payment the figure would come to €17.5 million. Yet, the headline figure is €25 million. Can someone explain that to me? There will be a shortfall in spending on the scheme unless something miraculous happens. I am no mathematician or genius but I can predict that will happen. How are the headline figures generated when schemes are being announced with details on what will be spent on them?

Deputy Michael Creed

Senator Mulherin raised the issue about sheep electronic identification tagging and the prospect that there could be an increased payment under the sheep welfare scheme. The sheep welfare scheme is precisely that. Actions under the sheep welfare scheme are designed for hill or lowland sheep. Sheep EID simply would not fall under either category of welfare. It simply would not be possible to top up, as suggested by the Senator and others.

Chairman

Could the EID tagging be included as an action?

Deputy Michael Creed

No, because all of the actions are welfare-related, whereas that would not be seen as a welfare issue. The scheme included feeding of ewes, dips and footbaths and so on.

Chairman

It is probably arguable.

Deputy Michael Creed

It would be hard to see how we could get EID recognised as a welfare issue for sheep. I do not think that is possible.

Chairman

It might be handier for the human, anyway.

Deputy Michael Creed

Senator Mulherin also asked who bears the cost. I appreciate that the cost is borne by the farmer and I have never hidden from that. If costs are reduced along the line and that results in diminished costs elsewhere, then there is a likelihood that some of the saving will be passed back to farmers. This should help as well. It is not a silver bullet but it should help with market access. More market access is beneficial. Let us consider the converse. If we have fewer markets we become more of a price taker, whereas when we have more market opportunities we are better able to navigate the best opportunities for farmers, if one market goes down. I firmly believe this is the right thing to do for many reasons. There is a cost for market access but there are labour saving elements as well. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland report speaks for itself. I believe it is the right thing to do.

Senator Mulherin raised the issue of an evaluation of the beef data genomics programme. That is under way. I have no wish to go into too much of the detail but it is a data driven scheme. The more data and information that is available to farmers about breeding practices in the beef industry, the better. The same applies to any industry. This has been proven in the dairy herd. The more data available to farmers that is gathered from this programme, the better their chances of making proper decisions in their farms.

I would encourage the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation, ICBF. It is not a Department agency. In fact, I believe it operates under a co-operative structure. We do not appoint board members. However, I believe there is a case to be made for the ICBF to be more engaged and proactive in terms of what I believe is a story that the federation needs to share. As the federation gathers more and more data, the story will help the industry to make better informed decisions.

I have no wish to get caught in the crossfire between breeding societies and the ICBF. They have different, if not conflicting, objectives. Good luck to breeding societies. Farmers should be able to make informed breeding decisions on the basis of data. That is what the beef data genomics programme aims to do. Those data must be legible, decipherable and consumable by farmers. That is something the ICBF could take on board in getting its message out.

I take Senator Mulherin's point about the pearl mussel. I have seen some of this stuff myself at constituency level as well. There is a conservation element, as in the hen harrier scheme. We need to be practical about how it impacts with development objectives locally. It is not especially useful to comment any further on that.

Senator Daly makes a point about how many will apply for the scheme and how we plan for it. We are into numerous rural development plans at this stage. We have form in respect of various schemes, including the agri-environment option scheme, GLAS and the rural environment protection scheme. We have a reasonable handle on the appetite for such schemes. Therefore, we can make an informed guess on the level of applications.

Senator Daly mentioned the hen harrier scheme and asked what if everyone applied. It is never the case that everyone applies. The criticism I am getting on the hen harrier scheme is that farmers cannot get in fast enough with their applications. There is a process that the scheme requires farmers to join at various stages. There is form in terms of estimating the level of interest in any scheme. We get representations from farm organisations as well and that is helpful. We hear from all stakeholders on what schemes might be of interest. All these things go into the mix in constructing the next rural development programme.

The policy objectives need to be met as well. There is farmer interest in schemes. In the context of the next rural development programme a major challenge will be to align them. Our requirement will be to align more of our rural development programme and our pillar 1 spending on climate-related projects. That is clearly a policy direction of travel. We need to be able to find a way to do that which works for farmers.

Senator Paul Daly

The Minister said himself that the Department seldom has 100% take-up. That is the point I am making. Who did the sums on it? Even if the person allowed for 100% at maximum payment, the scheme funding still only comes a little over two thirds of the way to €25 million. Where did the figure of €25 million come from with all the experience the Department has of previous schemes?

Deputy Michael Creed

The hen harrier scheme was the first time we had a scheme of that nature.

Senator Paul Daly

I know but it is a simple sum. We calculate 100% applications at maximum payment.

Chairman

How many applicants are there, potentially? I think that is the question Senator Daly is asking.

Deputy Michael Creed

I gather approximately 4,000 landowners are in the designated lands between all the various regions.

Senator Paul Daly

I calculated a sum on the given total number at the maximum allowable payment. It comes to €17.5 million.

Deputy Michael Creed

I understand the scheme targets approximately 2,000 participants.

Senator Paul Daly

It cannot possibly reach €25 million on the figures I have. Yet, €25 million is touted as the number.

Deputy Michael Creed

That is not the information available to me.

Chairman

Minster, can we get clarification on that point?

Deputy Michael Creed

I imagine numerous parliamentary questions have been answered on the matter but we can get the committee information on that.

Chairman

The Senator asked about the number of approvals not drawn down under the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme.

Deputy Michael Creed

The first of the three year approvals will expire later this year. We will get a handle on the number of those that are not proceeding or have not proceeded. This includes shorter term approvals that have not been completed. We are into the six month approvals. The numbers that have not proceeded are low indeed. Expired approvals to date amount to a little under €1 million.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I wish to address some of the Minister's comments. The Minister indicated that he was confused at my opening comment on why we were at the committee discussing this matter. The Minister indicated it was his understanding that it was the view or wish of the Business Committee of the Dáil that this should be dealt with at the Oireachtas Joint committee and that the Minister was complying with that desire.

I will clarify the position. The motion passed by the Dáil required the Minister to carry out a review of the rural development programme within two months and report on the spending commitments made and the participation rates for the schemes, but he did not do so. When he failed to do so, I wrote to him and the Ceann Comhairle about his failure to comply with the motion. The Minister responded to me by letter to the effect that he had answered questions about the rural development programme at a previous meeting of the committee and believed that in so doing he had done all that was required of him. I then wrote again to him and the Ceann Comhairle. When the Business Committee next discussed the issue, this committee had already written to the Minister asking him to appear before it to account for his failure to follow through on what was requested of him in the motion. We are here on the basis of his failure to comply with the motion to carry out a review of the rural development programme.

The Minister has indicated that support for the suckler cow sector is predicated on there being an underspend under the rural development programme. During the debate on the motion Fianna Fáil called for support for the suckler cow sector, which is under massive pressure. There are parts of the country where engagement in suckler beef and sheep production is the only suitable farm enterprise. We need to work together to support the farmers involved to continue to make a living. The motion sought to establish whether there was an underspend under the rural development programme and, if such underspend was identified, to ensure it would be directed towards providing support for the suckler cow sector. The motion also stated that, regardless of the underspend, the position on which needed to be clarified in the immediate term, we needed to work together in the next CAP negotiations to support the suckler cow sector. That was Fianna Fáil's position on the matter. The Minister has since been dismissive of any need for support for the suckler cow sector. Earlier this year he floated the idea of an early slaughter premium to support the sector, but a couple of months later he said he no longer supported that proposal, such that we are now not certain of his position. That has been his track record on the matter.

The Minister indicated that Fianna Fáil was of the view that we should not honour a commitment in respect of carryover from a previous rural development programme. That is not the core of what we have been saying; rather, we have been saying the Minister should honour his commitments in respect of the programme, including the commitment of €1.4 billion for GLAS. We are saying he should honour no more than his own promises, instead of trying to cloud the position in terms of what was in place previously. Previously, he committed to providing €1.4 billion for GLAS, but he is now saying that figure included a transitional payment from the REPS and the AEOS.

On the spend under GLAS, the Minister said that the former Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, had indicated in a press release that there would 50,000 participants in the scheme and made the point that in not referencing that there were 50,000 participants I was only giving half the story. In other words, I was referring to the commitment to provide €1.4 billion but not to the 50,000 participants. The Minister's point is that because the scheme has been taken up by 50,000 participants the Government has fulfilled its commitments. I never said there would not be 50,000 participants. I acknowledge that figure has been achieved. I was focusing on the commitment given by the then Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, that there would be €1.4 billion specifically for GLAS within the period of the rural development programme from 2014 to 2020. The Minister is now saying the €5,000 per participant figure was the maximum payment and that it was never intended that it would be an average sum. That was not the position of the former Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney. His position was that that he expected it to be the average figure.

I am not the first person to raise this as an issue or fight this battle. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív was very much to the fore in highlighting that the Government was not following through on its promises. At Question Time in the Dáil, when he and the then Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, were debating whether the Government's funding commitments would be followed through, Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the then Minister whether the average figure of €5,000 would be achieved and whether the full spending commitment would be met. In response, the then Minister said the maximum payments under GLAS and GLAS+ would be €5,000 and €7,000, respectively. It was always expected that the average payment would be close to the maximum figure of €5,000 because the majority of farmers would be eligible to draw down the full amount. It should be borne in mind that some would be receiving €7,000 under GLAS+. The then Minister went on to say that, on the basis of the number of entrants up to that point, he had no doubt that GLAS would succeed in attracting 50,000 applicants over the lifetime of the scheme and that it was projected that expenditure of about €250 million per year would be required when the full 50,000 applicants were participating in the scheme. That gives an average figure of €5,000. That is what the former Minister said. The present Minister, Deputy Michael Creed, is now backtracking and saying the sum of €1.4 billion announced by the former Minister for GLAS always included the figure of €400 million and that the Government was always clear on this. The Minister was never clear on it. It was always hidden. In fact, it was made clear that €1.4 billion was being provided for GLAS. It has now been clarified that was not what was being delivered and that farmers were sold a fib at the time.

On the next rural development scheme, can the Minister outline the projected spend on GLAS in 2021 and 2022? As we already know the number of participants in GLAS and how much they are being paid, the Minister need only make a simple calculation to provide the committee with the projected spend in those years. He referenced a spend of €4 billion under the current rural development programme. When one takes from that figure the €600 million for the transitional arrangement under the previous rural development programme, the figure for the 2014-20 rural development programme amounts to only €3.23 billion. Will the €104 million the Minister referenced as being the overspend be taken from the allocation for the next rural development programme because included in the €104 million is the additional €25 million of national financing for the area of natural constraints scheme? There is also the additional €100 million of national financing for the sheep welfare scheme. The Minister sold these increases in funding to farmers as Exchequer payments over and above what was being provided for in the rural development programme, yet he is saying today that the overspend of €104 million under the current programme will be part of a transitional arrangement and clawed back under the next rural development programme.

Deputy Michael Creed

The Deputy is engaged in selective quotation. The press statement to which Deputy McConalogue keeps alluding states:

I firmly believe it will deliver enormous dividends to rural Ireland, to the 30,000 Irish farmers we hope to see join GLAS in its first phase and to 20,000 more who will join in subsequent years.

That is what the then Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney said at the time. I quote further from the press statement:

GLAS is structured as a package and offers a maximum payment of €5,000 per applicant per full calendar year except where GLAS+ applies.

In reply to a parliamentary question-----

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

It also mentions €1.4 billion for GLAS to the end of 2020. The Minister is selectively quoting himself now, is he?

Deputy Michael Creed

If the Deputy would let me quote from the PQ reply from Deputy Coveney, it covers the point the Deputy makes. He said the total expenditure envisaged for GLAS measure 10 over the life of the scheme was €1.4 billion, including an allocation of some €390 million in transitional funding for remaining commitments arising from the agri-environment measures in the 2007 to 2013 rural development programme. They are the legacy issues we honoured contractually.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

What was the date of that reply?

Deputy Michael Creed

It was 29 September 2015.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

It is very nice to find one answer where he says that because every other time he said something very different.

Deputy Michael Creed

As I said in my opening remarks, the devil can cite scripture for his own purpose.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

The devil the Minister is talking to is his own Government.

Deputy Michael Creed

What the Deputy is putting is a skewed and slanted interpretation of the Minister's words. GLAS was always envisaged to be a 50,000 applicant scheme and that has been achieved. We are going around in circles. To an extent it is a dialogue of the deaf. It has been a very successful scheme. The commitment is a €160 million overspend which reflects the level of our commitment.

The Deputy asked about the sheep welfare scheme. The rural development programme is €4.1 billion. While the sheep welfare scheme is approved under that programme, it is funded by the Exchequer.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

So, it is not additional money over and above that. It comes out as part of the rural development programme and that €4 billion envelope.

Deputy Michael Creed

It is approved under the rural development programme to which we put in additional Exchequer funding.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

The Minister refers to additional Exchequer funding of €100 million. It will not quite be €100 million because there was underspending.

Deputy Michael Creed

In the context of this issue of €100 million, we sought approval for the scheme on the basis of a potential liability of up to €100 million should everyone apply for every eligible ewe. That did not happen.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

The sheep welfare scheme and the additional €25 million for ANC are funded from the Exchequer.

Deputy Michael Creed

Yes.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

That was sold to farmers as additional funds and new money in the budget.

Deputy Michael Creed

It is entirely funded by the Exchequer and it is approved. The ANC is a rural development programme and it is open to the State to fund at a higher rate. We have put additional money into the ANC and we have put additional Exchequer funds into the RDP to fund a sheep welfare scheme.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

While the Minister says the €100 million for the sheep welfare scheme and the €75 million for ANC are additional funds, it is clear from the Minister's presentation today that this €175 million is part of the rural development programme spend. The Minister says that when the RDP is all added up, there was a €104 million overspend which will now have to form part of the transitional arrangements into the next RDP. As such, it is not additional money and it is not extra in Exchequer terms. In fact, the Government will pay for it out of the next RDP post-2020.

Deputy Michael Creed

It is. The rural development programme is part of the budgetary process.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I understand that.

Deputy Michael Creed

On an annual basis, we have to secure approval for that. We have secured a commitment for the sheep welfare scheme and for the ANC. The premise of all of this was that we were not going to draw down the funding available to us in Europe. The point I make is that every last penny will be drawn down and we have put more money into the RDP than was necessary to draw down every last penny to meet our additional commitment under ANC.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

We would not expect any less than every last penny.

Deputy Michael Creed

I do not know if the line the Deputy is pursuing is a criticism of us putting more money in.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

The line I am pursuing is that the €175 million for the sheep welfare scheme and ANC payment has been sold to farmers as additional funds but will actually be paid for by way of a transitional arrangement by being taken out of the next rural development programme period. That is how the Minister's presentation stacks up. It is crystal clear that it will be part of the transitional arrangement into the next rural development programme. The Minister may want to go away to correct that and revert to us another day, but that is what is being presented to us today. It is part of the transitional money which will have to feed into the next rural development programme period post 2020 and into 2027.

Deputy Michael Creed

The allocation under the ANC and the sheep welfare scheme is part of our commitment under the original rural development programme. The overspend is our analysis across all of the schemes in terms of the profiled expenditure. In so far as we can anticipate it accurately, it reflects at this stage an overspend of €104 million. When one adds in the ANC, which is a rural development scheme but applied for annually rather than on a five-year contract basis like AEOS, GLAS and BGDP, the overall overexpenditure is over €104 million.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I asked how much of GLAS would run post-2020 into 2021 and 2022.

Deputy Michael Creed

I gave that figure earlier. It is at least €50 million.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

How does that break down over each year?

Deputy Michael Creed

I will have to get the details. I understand it relates mainly to GLAS 3 applicants who will be rolling over into the new rural development programme.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

That will form part of the transitional payment into the next rural development programme. That part of GLAS will be paid for out of the next RDP, not the current one.

Deputy Michael Creed

It is that part of GLAS, as AEOS and REPS were in the last one. If one joined in 2017-----

Chairman

It might be one's term.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

As part of his presentation today, the Minister outlined how he has taken €70 million from GLAS to pay for the Burren programme and the locally-led EIPs. GLAS is €70 million less as a result of paying for EIPs and the Burren programme out of the current rural development programme. There was no allocation for those in the original RDP. That is now coming off GLAS as part of the 2014 to 2020 RDP.

Deputy Michael Creed

What is the Deputy's point?

Chairman

He says the money for the Burren scheme came out of the GLAS scheme.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

We very much dispute how much the Government ever said it would spend on GLAS. I have been holding the Minister to account for the promise to spend €1.4 billion on it. The Minister has been indicating that it is currently €160 million overspent and I am pointing out that the Minister's presentation today indicates that he took €70 million away from GLAS to fund the Burren scheme and EIP. While those are obviously good schemes, the stated €160 million overspend fails to account for the fact that the Minister took €70 million away.

Deputy Michael Creed

My understanding is that it was originally envisaged that the Burren scheme would come in under measure 10. The Commission advised subsequently that it was more appropriate under measure 16 under the rural development programme or it might be the other way around.

The funding was always envisaged for the Burren but it had to be moved from one measure to another.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

One final question on the beef data genomics programme and the fact that the projections as part of the rural development programme indicated that there would be 35,000 farmers in it at a cost of €300 million. We only have just over 24,000 which is two thirds of that. The Minister is saying that two thirds of the initial projected membership will cost €290 million, almost as much as it would have cost for 35,000. How are those projections so wildly wrong?

Deputy Michael Creed

My information is that it depends on the profile of the applications. It depends on the size of the holding and the number of animals but this is the level of expenditure envisaged from the profile of farmers that we have in the programme. If we had more farmers in it we would be further overspending on the scheme.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I make that observation because to achieve the initial projection of 35,000-----

Deputy Michael Creed

Would have been a further overspend.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

Given that there was a suckler cow welfare scheme that had 50,000 in it previously and that there would have been some evidence to work off in terms of applicants, herd size and numbers, those figures on the spend per applicant were different from how it worked out and I wonder how it turned out to be so different.

Chairman

Is it an overspend that carried over into the new scheme?

Deputy Michael Creed

Not necessarily. Depending on when people joined the scheme some may have, if their five year contract went post 2020. If we had received the number of applications that we had the ambition for and the profile was similar to that of those who did apply, it is highly likely we would have a significant overspend.

Chairman

Was the scheme reopened in 2017?

Deputy Michael Creed

Yes.

Chairman

Was it 1,500 or 1,600 farmers-----

Deputy Michael Creed

It was late 2016. They came into the scheme in 2017.

Chairman

They will obviously be going post-2020.

Deputy Michael Creed

Some will, yes.

Chairman

That will be a carryover.

Deputy Michael Creed

Yes. They are on a six year contract.

Chairman

It is a five year scheme is it not?

Deputy Michael Creed

Six years so some of them will-----

Chairman

Some will carry over. There are no further questions. I thank the Minister and his officials for coming here today. He referenced the new CAP in some of the discussion around rural development. This committee has had a lot of engagement so far on that and we previously discussed whether the Minister or his officials may be available to the committee before the summer recess to give us an update or briefing on where we are with CAP at the moment in advance of discussions that will take place during the summer if that is possible.

Deputy Michael Creed

I am not sure if it has been communicated to the committee yet but I am holding a stakeholder engagement on 4 July in which the committee and all of the party spokespersons are invited to participate. There is no difficulty with either I or my officials coming in before the summer recess.

Chairman

I appreciate that. There is no further business. The meeting is adjourned until next Tuesday, 26 June at 3.30 p.m.

The joint committee adjourned at 7.14 p.m. until 3.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 26 June 2018.