I welcome the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Mary Coughlan, the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy Brendan Smith, and officials from the Department. The select committee has been asked to consider the Revised Estimates for the Department of Agriculture and Food. The clerk to the committee has circulated a draft timetable for consideration. It will allow us to focus on all aspects of the Estimates and to have a question and answer session. Is it agreed? Agreed. I invite the Minister for Agriculture and Food to make her opening remarks.
Vote 31 — Agriculture and Food (Revised).
Gabhaim leithscéal ar son an Aire Stáit, an Teachta Browne, nach féidir bheith anseo inniu. Tá súil agam go mbeidh mé féin agus an tAire Stáit, an Teachta Brendan Smith, in ann ceisteanna a fhreagairt. Gabhaim buíochas fosta seans a thabhairt na Meastacháin a chur os comhair an chruinnithe inniu.
I preface my remarks on voted expenditure by referring to the historical changes in the Common Agricultural Policy which will see farmers receive a single farm payment. For the first time this year this payment is decoupled from deductions. It represents a sea change in agriculture, replaces seven livestock premium arable aid schemes and will allow farmers to focus more clearly on the market elements of their incomes. This will create a significant incentive towards production efficiency and high quality production which yields better margins. It also reduces the bureaucratic nature of the current premia regime by eliminating restraints on production such as retention periods, stocking densities, farm headage limits and quotas.
The development of the scheme has presented a massive logistical challenge for the Department of Agriculture and Food. With the expiry of the application date, the Department is well on its way to implementing the scheme in full. The single farm payment, with residual direct payments from 2004 and market support schemes such as intervention and export refunds, is fully funded by the European Union and expenditure takes place outside the ambit of the Department's Vote. Expenditure on these non-Vote elements in 2005 will be approximately €1.85 billion which includes €1 billion for the single farm payment due to be paid in December with the remainder for market support schemes and residual payments due to farmers under existing direct payment schemes.
I now turn to expenditure under my Department's Vote. For 2005 the Voted gross Estimate allocation for my Department is €1.442 billion, including the capital envelope carry-over fund of approximately €18 million. This represents an increase of €184 million on the 2004 outturn. The corresponding net Voted expenditure is almost €994 million, up €221 million on the corresponding 2004 net outturn. Including the capital carry-over, the 2005 net allocation represents a 28% increase on the out-turn for 2004.
In these introductory remarks I will touch briefly on the administrative budget and then comment on each of the 12 programme subheads. Some of my comments will necessarily be brief but we can take up points of particular interest to Deputies in the subsequent discussion.
The administrative budget for 2005 includes a special allocation of €19 million for the fitting out and operation of the new laboratory complex at Backweston. The Backweston project involves the relocation of the Department's Central Veterinary Research Laboratory, Central Meat Control Laboratory, Dairy Science Laboratory, Pesticide Control Laboratory and the Official Seed Testing Station from Abbotstown and Harcourt Terrace to Backweston. This major project brings together a number of scientific divisions dealing with food quality control and animal health into a single new complex and will result in a modern laboratory service in state-of-the-art facilities equipped to the highest standards. The Backweston laboratory complex is expected to be fully operational by the end of this year.
Subhead B provides almost €29 million for expenditure on research, testing and training and reflects a commitment to helping the food industry to position itself to meet the challenge of increased competition. The main objective of this expenditure is to bring about an improvement in the quality of agricultural produce through the promotion of research and training. This is reflected in the substantial allocation for research and development grants for the food sector as well as for Teagasc training under the national development plan. The funding under this subhead is additional to the general grant-in-aid allocation for Teagasc, part of which funds that organisation's research activity.
In conjunction with other State agencies and industry, my Department is examining how best to maximise the contribution that research in the food sector can make to economic development. Research, innovation and a proactive approach to understanding and exploiting market trends in a rapidly changing globalised food market are significantly important to the development of our largest indigenous industry.
Subhead Crelates to food safety, animal health and welfare and plant health. One of the major high level goals of my Department's current statement of strategy is the protection of human and animal health which continues to be a major priority in the context of the development of our agriculture and food sectors. Apart from the obvious need to protect consumers, the unassailable fact is that if our agri-food industry is to flourish, consumers at home and abroad must have full confidence in the methods used in the production and processing of food. It is imperative that controls are in place to ensure only safe food products reach the marketplace.
The 2005 allocation under subhead C amounts to just under €165 million. While this is slightly up on the corresponding 2004 outturn of €161.4 million, it is nevertheless down 12% on the corresponding 2004 budget allocation. The 2005 provision reflects, I hope, the ongoing improved animal disease situation. I would like to comment on some of the major animal disease programmes covered by the subhead, particularly the good progress made in recent years in reducing the incidence of BSE, TB and brucellosis.
BSE case numbers fell from 333 in 2002 to 126 in 2004. Most cases continue to arise in cattle born in 1996 and earlier years, although we have had some cases this year with animals born in 1999 and one recent case involving an animal born in 2001. The cases in younger animals do not detract from the very positive situation which is continuing this year. Case numbers to date are down 60% on the corresponding period in 2004.
Likewise, the incidence of TB and brucellosis has been declining in recent years. Regarding TB, there has been a steady decline since the late 1990s in the numbers of reactors, the number of which fell last year to 23,000, almost 50% below the 1999 level. This is most welcome and due to a number of factors, including the wildlife strategy adopted in recent years, better controls on cattle movements due to the CMMS and dealer legislation and vigorous prosecution of offences under the Diseases of Animals Act 1966. While I am hopeful this progress can be sustained, we have to be mindful of the difficulties. The brucellosis scenario has also improved significantly. For example, the number of laboratory positive animals last year was approximately 90% lower than in 1998. The number of animals removed fell by about 80% in the same period.
The lower incidence of these diseases has led to a reduction in the costs of the schemes. For BSE, gross expenditure was €89 million in 2002 but this reduced to €37 million last year. Operational costs for TB-brucellosis were €53 million in 2004 compared with €65 million in 2003. They were as high as €81.6 million in 1999. In view of these developments, the Government decided last December that the disease levies should be reduced by one third to the 2002 level. The new rates which came into effect on 1 January will result in a saving of approximately €5 million to farmers this year. I expect costs for these three schemes to continue to fall this year and in future years.
Apart from these diseases, we continue to take measures to deal with other diseases such as scrapie, Johne's and Aujeszkey's. In addition, we must also keep contingency plans in readiness to deal with potential outbreaks of exotic diseases such as avian influenza, FMD, classical swine fever, etc. The objective is to seek to avoid outbreaks of these diseases but increased travel and other factors will increase the risks of outbreaks in the years ahead.
Subhead D which amounts to more than €31 million covers technical and ancillary costs associated with market intervention and the operation of the FEOGA account through which all EU financed direct payments to farmers are paid. The subhead also deals with IT expenditure associated with the land parcelling system.
Subhead E provides €231.5 million for disadvantaged area payments to almost 100,000 farmers. The European Commission's proposal for the post-2006 rural development framework provides for new criteria for the classification of disadvantaged areas. At meetings of the Council of Ministers I have stressed this is an extremely important and sensitive issue. Other member states have adopted a similar position. I will continue to seek a solution that is equitable and in Ireland's interests. At this stage I cannot be definitive as to the shape of that solution since negotiations are in progress but I shall seek to negotiate an outcome that will maintain the benefits of the scheme for our disadvantaged areas for the future.
Subhead F provides funding for the rural environment protection scheme. The allocation for 2005 is €271 million, compared with an expenditure outturn of €207.6 million in 2004. The provision for REPS represents an increase of almost €64 million or 30% on the 2004 outturn. The REP scheme has always been a priority for my Department, as the significant funding for 2005 demonstrates.
Following decoupling, farmers are in a position to examine new opportunities. I have strongly urged them, if they are not availing of REPS, to think seriously about it. They have received €1.6 billion since the scheme was introduced in 1994. A total of 45,000 farmers partake in it, close to the record figure we reached in 1999. The scheme is making a strong recovery after a temporary lull. However, there is room for many more. Under REPS 3, the average farmer qualifies for €6,250 a year for five years, an increase of 28% on REPS 1 and REPS 2, but REPS does not just help farmers, it also delivers benefits to the environment. Now is the time for farmers to look at making it part of their planning for coming years.
The bulk of subhead G — €77 million — relates to the early retirement scheme. It is appropriate to comment on the scheme which has come in for much criticism of late, mainly because of the implications of the new single payment scheme for retired farmers. My officials were conscious of these difficulties from an early stage and have met representatives of retired farmers on a number of occasions. While we have not been able to meet all of their demands, much has been done to alleviate potential problems for them within the constraints of the regulations under which the single payment scheme is introduced. I am pleased that a provision has been included in the national reserve for the families of retired farmers who decide to take up farming.
I am examining the report of the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food on the scheme. It covers a range of issues which I will address shortly in a formal response to the committee. I appreciate and share the concerns of committee members that retired farmers should receive fair treatment. However, I must stress that I am constrained in what I can do about the European regulation under which the scheme was introduced.
My Department has just published an expenditure review of the current early retirement scheme which includes a number of interesting conclusions and recommendations that will inform decisions of any future scheme. We will have to monitor progress on the scheme in the light of the impact of the single farm payment and taking account of the report of the joint committee on the expenditure review. In the Estimates for 2005 we have included a provision of €77 million for the scheme, an increase on the outturn of €73 million in 2004.
In addition to the early retirement scheme, the subhead includes a further provision of €10 million for the current installation aid scheme under the NDP and its predecessor scheme under the 1994-99 operational programme for agriculture, rural development and forestry. Both schemes are aimed at improving the age structure of farming. There are a number of measures under the tax system which also contribute to this objective.
Subhead H provides funding for the Department's various investment grant programmes under the NDP and other similar measures. For 2005 a sum of €62.7 million has been provided, more than double the outturn of €30.7 million for 2004. The range of measures covered by the subhead includes grants for on-farm investment and the development of the horticulture sector and equine and cattle breeding infrastructures. It also covers a marketing and processing grants scheme.
The largest element relates to the farm waste management scheme, for which the 2005 allocation is €38.8 million. To an extent, demand for the scheme is contingent on the approval of the nitrates action plan being evaluated by the Commission. Any changes considered necessary once the action plan is agreed will be considered in the light of the additional obligations imposed on farmers. It will also take account of any conditions imposed by the Commission and any cost implications for the Exchequer. Such changes, if considered necessary, would require the approval of the Commission and could only be considered in consultation with my colleague, the Minister for Finance, taking account of existing arrangements agreed in the context of the partnership negotiations.
A proposed new pig welfare capital grants scheme is being prepared, for which a provision of €3 million has been made this year. The aim of the scheme is to provide assistance for pig producers towards the cost of adapting buildings to meet new pig welfare requirements such as the provision of loose housing arising from the ban on tethered sows and gilts which comes into effect on 1 January 2006. It is proposed that grant payments will be at a rate of 40% for capital investment in buildings, subject to a maximum of €120,000 per applicant. Aid will also be available in respect of the cost of preparing environmental impact assessment statements if applicable to the investment in question. I hope to be in a position to launch the scheme shortly.
Subhead I provides for an allocation of a €124 million package in 2005, when the carry-over of capital funding of almost €18 million from 2004 is included. This is the biggest amount ever provided for forestry and an affirmation of the Government's commitment to the sector. The package will facilitate a planting programme of 15,000 hectares in 2005, should the demand materialise, as well as provide funding for a number of specialised schemes such as the native woodland and neighbour wood schemes and for investment in infrastructure and research and development. Some 90% of all planting in recent years has been carried out by the farming sector. The concession achieved in EU negotiations which allows farmers to stack single payment entitlements in the case of forestry land will be very attractive to many farmers. Under the single payment scheme, farmers can plant up to 50% of their lands and attract valuable forestry premiums while still drawing down the entire single payment entitlement.
Forestry generates employment for some 16,000 people and has a major contribution to make towards ensuring the economic stability of rural communities, particularly in the wake of CAP reform. We should also be aware, however, of the key role our forests play in enhancing and protecting our environment and in reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. I draw attention to the value of our forests as carbon sinks, trapping the atmospheric carbon generated by modern industry. Ireland has the highest growth rates for a range of tree species in Europe. As a result, afforestation has the ability to deliver real climate benefits within a relatively short timeframe. These "non-timber" benefits will become increasingly important as we move into the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol.
The main challenge on the horizon is the new rural development regulation under negotiation in Brussels. Progress has been made in increasing the rates of aid originally on offer as well as on the premium payment period but difficult negotiations lie ahead on the regulation.
On subhead J, Teagasc has a very important role to play in supporting the Government's strategy for the development of the agriculture and food industries and provides a range of important services. Consequently, substantial Exchequer resources are provided each year to enable it to provide first class research, training and advisory services for farmers and the food industry. The total funding provided by my Department for Teagasc for non-capital purposes has increased significantly in recent years, from €82 million in 2000 to €118 million this year, including a provision of €11.7 million under subhead B. By any standards, these are substantial resources and a clear indication of the Government's continued commitment to supporting Teagasc.
Subhead K provides for grant-in-aid to Bord Bia to promote, assist and develop the marketing of Irish food and drink and horticulture, including amenity horticulture. The transfer of the full range of horticultural functions to Bord Bia last July following the merger of An Bord Glas with Bord Bia has worked well. The professionalism of the staff and the commitment of the sectoral sub-boards, including the horticulture sub-board, have made for a seamless transition and the merged organisation is proving to be more than the sum of its parts. The larger organisation is well placed to address the challenges of adapting to rapidly changing consumer demand and lifestyles, consolidation at retail level and hugely competitive and innovative international markets.
It will not be easy to establish new and more profitable markets for the food and horticulture sectors as Irish agriculture enters a period of great change with future production decisions influenced by decoupling policy under the Luxembourg agreement, EU enlargement and a new WTO round. Bord Bia has recognised this challenge and commissioned a strategic review which involves wide internal and external consultation. I look forward to its outcome.
State funding for food and horticulture promotional activities under this subhead is complemented by expenditure provisions under subhead H and under a public good food research programme carried out by third level institutions and Teagasc, the FIRM programme, within subhead B. The FIRM programme funds research designed to provide a base of expertise in generic technologies to support innovation and product development in the food industry, as well as assurance for consumers that development is underpinned by food safety and quality issues. This includes research into the areas of nutrition and functional foods.
Subhead L covers my Department's food aid contributions to the United Nations World Food Programme. Our total projected contribution in 2005 is €6 million, an increase of 24% on the 2004 allocation of €4.83 million. All our food aid is given in the form of untied cash donations to the World Food Programme which uses the money to feed the hungry in the most effective way possible.
The lower 2005 appropriations-in-aid figures in subhead N are due largely to the fact that some EU funded receipts in the 2004 appropriation figures are non-recurring. In addition, reduced EU refunds are expected as a consequence of lower expenditure on BSE, arising from expected improvements in the management of the disease.
The agri-food industry is one of the truly indigenous sectors of the economy. It has a low import content, generates high added value as well as profits which largely remain within the country. It accounts for 9% of GDP, 9% of total employment and 18% of industrial jobs. The industry is export-oriented and put in a record performance last year with exports exceeding €7 billion, despite competitive and currency challenges. The Government remains committed to the sustainable development of the sector. When Voted and non-Voted expenditures by my Department are taken into account, total public spending on agriculture, food and forestry is expected to reach almost €3.3 billion this year. This is a very high level of public expenditure and underlines our continuing commitment to the agri-food and forestry sectors.
I will be happy to answer any questions members of the select committee might have about the Department's Vote.
I thank the Minister for her presentation and invite Deputy Naughten to speak. We will go through each subhead. Is that agreed?
Will we go through each one separately?
Yes.
I have no objections.
The Deputy will make his opening remarks as Fine Gael spokesperson. The select committee will then go through each subhead.
I thank the Minister, the Minister for State and officials from the Department of Agriculture and Food for coming and the Minister for her presentation on the Vote. She set out the environment which is a very difficult one for agriculture. Some 50 farmers leave the sector every week. This brings its own challenges. Over one half of farmers have an off-farm income source. In 1997 average farm income was approximately €14,000. Today, in relative terms, it is €11,000. By contrast, the average industrial wage has increased to €30,000. At the same time input costs have increased by 22.5%. These are some of the challenges facing agriculture.
I am disappointed that the Minister failed to address one of the vital criticisms about her Department, that the Estimates before us are nothing more than a paper exercise. The difficulty is that there are enormous underspends. The Minister does not recognise that there is a difficulty within the Vote in respect of many major capital and current programmes. Rather, she regards an underspend as an asset.
Throughout her presentation the Minister consistently mentioned the outturn for 2004. The Estimate for 2004 was completely different. When we look at it, we see that the budgets for research and training, REPS, the farm waste management scheme and the hygiene scheme, all of which are critical for the development of the industry, fell short. I had hoped the Minister would recognise this fact and set out how her Department intended to address the matter. It is pointless providing funds if the Department is not prepared to sell some of the schemes. Unfortunately, that has not happened.
While I do not want to go into the detail of the Vote, I want to highlight some key figures. In 2004 there was an underspend of €5.5 million on the national beef assurance scheme which is critical for the development of the industry. There was an underspend of €53 million on REPS while there was an underspend of €2 million on the installation aid scheme, another key scheme for bringing young farmers into the industry. There was an underspend of €11 million on the farm retirement scheme which will experience a €7 million cut in the current year.
With regard to the farm retirement scheme, does the Minister see additional demand in the context of the single farm payment or does she think there will be a fall-off? There are two routes which farmers can take. They can take part in the scheme or they can retain their direct payments. What does the research the Minister has at her disposal say about the level of demand?
There has been an underspend of €14 million on the farm waste management scheme which will be critical for the development of the industry in the context of the nitrates directive. While a total budget of €30 million was allocated in 2004, only €16 million was spent. While I must acknowledge a 33% increase in the allocated budget for this year, providing €38.8 million is pointless when we do not have a decision from the Department on the 60% grant or guidelines regarding specifications for new facilities. There will be a dramatic fall in the drawing down of the grant in the current year because farmers must still go through the process of getting planning permission and so forth when, subject to approval under the nitrates directive, they receive decisions. Only at the end of this year will there be an initial drawing down. While the Minister is providing the money, it is a pity she did not recognise that there were bottlenecks within the system that should have been addressed.
The Minister of State, Deputy Brendan Smith, has been telling us that the organic sector must be developed. There is an underspend of €1 million in this area as less than €400,000 was spent in 2004.
We must enhance these critical elements of agriculture. We must not only ensure a complete maximisation of the available funds but the Minister should also go back to the Department of Finance as the end of the year approaches for extra funding not used elsewhere. She does not do so as her Department seems to have taken its eye off the ball in promoting such schemes in the agricultural community and addressing some of the bottlenecks in the system. This is a key message in the Estimates and a real disappointment.
I welcome the reduced incidence of diseases such as TB and brucellosis about which the Minister spoke. We do not wish to end up in a situation where diseases emerging today must be dealt with by establishing eradication schemes tomorrow. There is a fear we are taking our eye off the ball. For example, in the case of Johne's disease those involved feel the Department has done this. On the matter of scrapie, many farms were destocked in a devastating blow but the Department's assistance in restocking is extremely ambiguous and leaves a bad taste in the mouth of many such farmers, one of whom is in my constituency, as the Department is aware.
Will the Minister consider establishing a bio-security committee between her Department and other agencies to examine these issues? In her presentation she made the point that the risks of outbreaks in the future would become greater and greater due to an increase in travel and other factors. My colleague, Deputy Upton, has raised this particular issue a number of times. We must take a comprehensive approach to determining the risks, how we can reduce them and ensure the economy and agriculture sector are protected.
There was a significant underspend of €18 million in the forestry budget in 2004 but I recognise that carrying this over is a positive development. I had hoped for some indication in the Minister's response about how we would ensure demand materialised. This is not just an agricultural or farming issue. It has implications for the economy, the Kyoto Protocol and so forth but the Department does not seem to have taken any steps to encourage and promote the development of the sector.
I will speak about something close to my own heart as it is to the Minister's, the matter of disadvantaged area payments. While I know we will have an opportunity to discuss this shortly, I will ask one brief question. Is it possible to have a country cap with schemes being established within each member state similar to what happened with the single farm payment? Each member state has been given significant discretion in how the payments should be made. Could a similar mechanism be put in place under the disadvantaged areas scheme in order that funding could be at least ring-fenced and targeted in whatever way the Minister saw fit?
I thank the Minister, Minister of State and their officials for their presentation. This is a significant year in agriculture with the single farm payment scheme kicking in, together with all the bureaucracy we had hoped to avoid. It will be difficult to measure its implications for, and impact on, the farming community and the Department until it beds down. The level of bureaucracy has reduced, although farmers have valid concerns about the considerable form filling they continue to deal with and the issue of cross-compliance, which is becoming a nightmare. Will the Minister comment on this? It is almost impossible for farmers to cope with the number of inspections because they are under threat of inspection constantly to provide for cross-compliance. However, we must wait and see how it shapes up in the coming year.
Another issue is how the changes in agriculture will impact on small and marginalised farmers. I would like the Minister to elaborate on alternative farm enterprises. Small and medium-sized farmers are most at risk and it is likely they will become so marginalised that they will not generate a viable income. As alternative farm enterprises will be important, I would like more detail about how they can be promoted and developed to accommodate those who cannot generate a viable income from farming alone.
I am pleased funding under the subhead dealing with the development of agriculture and food has increased. However, I am curious about the significant increase in the allocation for carcass disposal. Will the Minster comment on subhead H6? Will she also comment further on the horticulture industry? She referred to the success of the amalgamation of Bord Bia and An Bord Glas but horticulture has been the poor relation and I am slightly afraid that might continue to be the case. Amenity horticulture as well as fruit and vegetable growing will also be important in the future. Given the ongoing debate about obesity, we should hear a great deal more about fruit and vegetables. Ireland's amenity horticulture industry was successful again earlier. One of our best known gardeners won a silver medal at the Chelsea Flower Show and it might give us a boost in looking positively at amenity horticulture.
I am like a broken record regarding research and development but Ireland will be increasingly threatened by imports of alternative, new and innovative products. It is important, therefore, that research and development should keep up to speed. The impact of the expansion of the European Union on Ireland's food development programmes must be considered.
On BSE, I welcome the positive trends. It is good that we can acknowledge the incidence of the disease is reducing. However, I am still concerned about animals born after the ban on meat and bonemeal was introduced. I seek an assurance that every avenue of investigation will be kept open to explore the reasons animals born after the imposition of the ban continue to test positive for the disease. Every time we think the disease has gone away, it resurfaces. As the current number is substantial, there needs to be an ongoing investigation into the matter. If people are found to be in breach of the stringent rules laid down, they should be penalised adequately. The whole industry cannot be compromised because of the bad behaviour of a small number.
Deputy Naughten referred to animal diseases. Johne's disease is still prevalent. We need to be aware of it and alerted to its progress because there is a danger the incidence might escalate if we do not continue to monitor it closely. I have referred to diseases such as avian flu on a number of occasions. It is an important issue, from the point of view of the poultry industry and that of human health. Resources should be put in place to ensure the risk is minimised. Border controls should be tightly managed to ensure there is no risk from diseases such as the avian flu and other exotic diseases which we cannot anticipate much of the time.
I cannot let the meeting end without mentioning the threat to our industry from imports which might not be subject to the same level of inspection and traceability that we expect in the case of our home produced foods. It is not right that the industry should be disadvantaged by virtue of a price differential and a lack of traceability in other countries from which we import.
The early retirement scheme has exercised significantly all our minds. The Minister should ensure the matter is resolved rapidly because it is unfair on those who have been waiting so long for an outcome. I hope the Oireachtas committee report which is on the Minister's desk will be addressed rapidly. I am pleased Teagasc has been given funding on an ongoing basis to ensure there is a competitive research and development arm to the food research industry.
In regard to women in agriculture, I urge the Minister to ensure they are given due recognition and facilities are made available to support the important role they play, not just at the softer end of the market but also in terms of their responsibility for and management of farming enterprises.
I thank the Minister, the Minister of State, Deputy Brendan Smith, and the officials for coming and the Minister for her presentation.
It is only right that we highlight the decline in the numbers involved in the farming community, particularly in small to medium-sized family farms in more isolated areas of the west, south west and north west. Deputy Naughten referred to the fact that 50 people a week were leaving farming. This emphasises the importance of funding for those most in need but I cannot see how matters will change in the current circumstances. Young farmers taking over smaller farms, trying to compete and live as active farmers cannot rely on their farming income to survive. I do not know how we can deal with the issue at a political level.
For some time I have been drawing attention to people trying to compete and survive on small farms. Even if a farm becomes available in their communities, they are unable to compete with big farmers. A few weeks ago a farm in my area was sold for €15,000 an acre to the biggest farmer in the area. Many live on unviable farms. However, if they were in a position to purchase farms jointly or if there was something similar to the former Land Commission in place, they would be able to scrape a living. Unfortunately, this is not the case and nothing presented to the select committee will help.
I appreciate the Minister's comments on Teagasc, training, research and development. However, there was a decline in previous years. For example, the closure of the Teagasc centre at Ballinamore sends a statement, as does the selling off of premises to fund projects. This must be factored in and certainly clouds the issue.
As far as incentives for organic production and alternative farm enterprises are concerned, I welcome anything that will help to provide young people entering the industry with an opportunity to develop alternative farming methods.
I compliment everyone concerned with the work done on the eradication of brucellosis, TB and, in particular, BSE. Tremendous work has been done through a collective effort, on which I compliment the Department. It is good to see diseases and their effects decline.
One major worry regarding BSE, in particular, is the number of cases in the past two years involving animals born after 1999. Has the Department carried out research into the relevant gene lines or were they new outbreaks in previously uncontaminated herds?
I would like but do not see a commitment towards the development of an all-Ireland aspect of farming, particularly in the fields of marketing and disease eradication. There was a good working relationship in the past when we encountered common problems. I want to see developments in this regard. Moreover, a Friesian calf in Donegal is no different from a Friesian calf in Fermanagh. We must examine ways of developing the all-Ireland aspect.
There is a target that by 2020 biofuels should meet 20% of our fuel needs. I understand we have reached a figure of 2%. How does the Minister intend to deal with this issue? Is there a plan to increase funding to encourage and provide an incentive for young farmers to become involved?
The issue of gender equality has been touched on. The introduction of decoupling is a positive step which I supported from day one, long before it was supported by the Government, other Opposition parties or anyone else. I supported and welcomed it because I saw it as a way to make things easier for farmers and which would provide them with a sense of security for ten years at least.
I have major worries concerning the early retirement scheme and those who participate in it. The joint committee has heard numerous presentations by groups of retired farmers. It is heartbreaking that they signed up for a system which has effectively discriminated against them since. If one examines the issue from the perspective of indexation, their income has not increased, although some have been participants for eight or nine years. They are still in the same position. A report was prepared by the committee and supported unanimously. I want it to be taken on board in its entirety, if possible.
I call Deputy Ned O'Keeffe. He should be aware that in his absence the select committee agreed to go through the subheads one by one.
The turnout for the debate on this important agricultural item is disappointing.
I congratulate the Minister on her appointment. She is a breath of fresh air in the Department of Agriculture and Food. I also send my good wishes to Mr. Tom Moran who was appointed Secretary General of the Department. I wish Mr. John Malone well on his retirement. I had the privilege and honour of working with both men and was very proud of their ability and capacity to deal with the industry.
There are many issues facing agriculture. In this context, the issues referred to by the Opposition are not very relevant. The sugar beet industry is a very important, in respect of which the Minister is doing an excellent job in trying to salvage what she can of it. However, on current trends, it appears the industry is facing a doomsday scenario.
The nitrates directive will have a devastating effect on agriculture. While the directive has been in the offing since 1994, successive Governments neglected to deal with the issue and, unlike the Danish Government, put the directive in place.
There are a few industries on the periphery of the agriculture sector which are major exporters. We have the pig and poultry industries which appear to have been forgotten in all negotiations. If we lose our sugar beet, poultry and pig industries, agriculture will be sent back to the Stone Age.
As I understand it, every farm in Denmark has to produce a nutrient management plan and I fail to understand why we cannot introduce such a plan. The appropriate control of slurry is the way forward. I understand every other European country is making substantial grant aid available to farmers at the maximum level. Countries like the Netherlands and Denmark which face the same problems have introduced grant aid. I ask the Minister to address the issue.
I keep reminding people of the fact that the nitrates directive is an issue for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, rather than the Department of Agriculture and Food. If it was the preserve of the Department of Agriculture and Food, the Minister would have a great grasp of the matter.
The other issue I wish to address is that of welfare. I was slightly taken aback by the low level of grant aid available to farmers and the figure the Minister presented will not do anything to solve the problem.
I declare that I have an interest in the pig industry as I have a share in a pig unit. The Minister must become involved in the rationalisation of the dairy industry which is very important to the economy. It produces five million tonnes of milk, as opposed to the 14 million produced in New Zealand. An organisation like the Dairy Board, akin to the one in place in Finland, should co-ordinate its activities and work with it. The Dairy Board has done a great job in ensuring we get a good price for milk and good markets for our products. The figures for the industry are 60% in respect of commodities and approximately 40% in respect of added value. The Minister's involvement is necessary because the industry is disorganised and unco-ordinated.
In the past ten years there has been little development in agriculture in terms of policy aimed at its development. Last week I attended a meeting in Wexford on behalf of the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business. All sectors, including the social, vocational and enterprise sectors, were all conscious of the involvement of agriculture in Wexford during the years. However, the sector is now more or less being forgotten. We must bring it back in from the cold because it has always been the most stable part of the economy in difficult times. As the construction sector cannot keep expanding, what will happen to it?
We are doing well in beef production. I will not address the issue of decoupling because it is peripheral.
We talk about the three major diseases — BSE, brucellosis and TB — but they do not present the biggest problem. The costs associated with diseases such as IBR, BVD, Johne's and Aujeszkey's disease in pig present a bigger problem. We are failing to attract business from the Russian pigmeat market because we have no measures in place to combat Aujeszkey's disease. We have three regional veterinary laboratories in the southern area in Kilkenny, Cork and Limerick. I suggested to the Minister that we should have one regional veterinary laboratory in the southern region which would provide us with a proper veterinary service because while the service did begin well approximately 35 years ago, it has deteriorated since due to a lack of personnel and, probably, costs.
The regional laboratories have contributed greatly to the health and safety of animals and have cut costs for farmers. I suggest that a regional laboratory be established for the southern region and that the other three be rationalised. The taking on board of that suggestion would be a progressive step on the part of the Government. I am glad to note the attendance of Mr. Seamus Healy at today's meeting.
Teagasc places a great deal of emphasis on research and development but what is to be done about the advisory service, which is a vital part of that organisation for the farming community? It is an independent authority which provides farmers with independent advice. It has been suggested that the service should be privatised. A private advisory service would be biased in favour of different chemical and manufacturing companies. We should retain the current independent advisory service. It would be dangerous to move away from it.
In terms of the health of cattle and so on, BVD is currently rampant throughout the country and little is being done to address the problem. The prevalence of that disease is upsetting the economics of dairy farming in a substantial way. This problem was caused by imports under the Single Market in 1992, at which time we did not put in place any measures to deal with it. Perhaps the Minister will respond on that issue. While animals were quarantined, the problem could have been better addressed if we had done things right and not allowed the import of animals willy-nilly.
The incidence of Johne's disease in County Cork is quite serious. I was taken aback by the most unsatisfactory reply I received to a parliamentary question I tabled on 8 July 2004, reference No. 2101/04. The veterinary department of Cork County Council has raised concern about the presence of Johne's disease in bottles of milk given to children in schools. It is time the Department of Agriculture and Food dealt with this issue instead of passing it on to the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland is an organisation which should be active outside the farm gate, not inside it. That issue needs to be clarified.
I compliment Bord Bia on its excellent work. However, I am rather appalled at the Irish bacon industry. Having visited many supermarkets locally, I note that they are not carrying the Bord Bia emblem among their leading brands. Irish farmers are contributing substantial amounts to Bord Bia.
I would like the Minister to tell the committee why we do not provide veterinary inspections at factories from which we import? Countries that import Irish products provide veterinarians on-site at our factories. I recently received a reply to a parliamentary question, ref No. 10499/05, on 12 April 2005 relating to imports of Chilean bacon to Cahir through Europe. Farmers in Chile are permitted to use carbadox as a feedstuff, a food banned in Europe and Ireland. In fact, one could receive a prison sentence if caught using it. The same applies in the case of the poultry sector. Why is there not better inspection at source? This situation must change if we are to have a level playing pitch. The pitch is not level for Irish farmers. The current Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, is doing an excellent job but things must change.
Traceability is not worth the paper it is written on. Another issue often mentioned is that of own brand for Brady, O'Keeffe & Company which manufactures butter, cheese, goats milk and goats cheese. At present, Tesco, Aldi and Dunnes Stores operate their own brands under the yellow, brown and green labels, respectively, and are not required to include on the item the place of manufacture or the country of origin. Traceability will not work until consumers can identify the country of origin and place of manufacture. I do not believe any country in Europe will try to prevent us doing that in the interests of traceability.
On taking office, the Minister gave us commitments in these areas and I am asking that she make good them now. I do not have anything good to say about Enterprise Ireland following the closure of Galtee Foods in Mitchelstown. The latter has resulted in a proper mess in the bacon industry. Mitchelstown is a commodity buyer and Glan Bia is a commodity seller. No factory in Ireland is killing pigs for branded products. I have a keen interest in the bacon industry.
Perhaps the Minister will respond to the questions I have raised.
Are there any questions on subhead A?
I have a question on subhead A5 — office machinery and other office supplies. In light of the fact that under the single farm payments there will be fewer inspections, less paper work and so on, why has the allocation under that subhead been increased? Should there not be a reduction rather than an increase under that subhead?
Much of the budget relates to IT expenditure in respect of the changeover from the old system to the single farm payment scheme.
There is also an increase in expenditure under subhead A8. Surely, the opposite should be the case in terms of external audits, audit committee expenses and anti-fraud measures. We are going in the opposite direction in that the allocation under this subhead has also been increased.
The Deputy is correct in that the subhead relates to audit and certification. He will be aware that we are required, under EU rules, to provide a substantial amount of auditing, anti-fraud investigations, computer audits, risk management and so on. The increase is to ensure that we have adequate funding for the scheme. We may not draw down the money but we must ensure we have a substantial amount available within the scheme should we require it. The provision is a small amount over and above the 2004 outturn.
Subhead A9 deals with laboratory equipment. While the increase in investment is to be welcomed, will the existing equipment become redundant and/or was it under-subscribed up to now?
There may be a couple of schools looking to take the equipment, I am not sure. A substantial amount of funding was made available for the new laboratory at Backweston. The Minister of State and I had an opportunity to view the laboratory. It is a fabulous facility, one of the best in the European Union. I am sure the Deputy's students would be delighted to have an opportunity to participate in the classes there. While some of the equipment will be utilised, I am not sure what will happen to the remainder. I imagine some of it is not worth keeping.
It sounds like a state-of-the-art facility and investment in it is to be welcomed.
Yes. It is a massive facility which incorporates all the new technologies available and all necessary safety precautions have been put in place in the laboratories. While it was an expensive investment, it is, particularly in light of the confines within which staff were previously obliged to work, worthwhile. It will also allow us to do more.
Perhaps the Minister would provide an information note to the committee on the type of laboratory services being provided. I am aware of the court case relating to the assimilation of bone spicules and the differentiation between mammalian and avian. Will the new laboratory have facilities which will enable us to differentiate in that regard? That is an issue which has caused enormous problems in the past. Perhaps the Minister will provide the committee with an up to date position in that regard.
Is the Deputy referring to feed imports?
Yes.
The difficulty is that some of the information is sub judice.
I am aware of that.
I recently received a letter on the matter from Commissioner Kyprianou to whom I had indicated our concern that although some tests are not available to us in order to give a definitive answer, the methodology being used by us is not being used by our member state colleagues. I also indicated that if the position could not be addressed, a change would be necessary. He assured me, around Christmas time, that he was dealing with the issue.
The European Food Safety Authority will bring recommendations to the Commission shortly in respect of the issue of tolerance. We will then be advised accordingly. In my view, we could have some tolerance. This issue was also highlighted in regard to genetically modified foods coming from the United States. We have the technologies to deal with the issue but whether zero tolerance is the best way forward must be re-evaluated. The other issue is sub judice.
Are they any questions on subhead B — research and training?
Will the Minister elaborate on subhead B, because the allocation for 2004 was €25.8 million but the outturn was €21.2 million. How did that happen and what steps has the Minister taken to ensure that it will not recur this year?
We are making new investments this year. For example, €1.5 million has been allocated under human resources and research and development to a new agri-environment research programme. We hope to see a greater outturn in one of the research and developments grants, the food industry research measure, FIRM, grant. Some very good work has been done under that initiative. The research on obesity that was launched last week came under that heading. We expect to increase expenditure on such grants. I hope to see an increased take up rate for the FIRM grant and that will allow us to deal with a couple of issues that are very important. I am particularly concerned about the baby food sector and am anxious that the industry in question, in conjunction with research staff, will be able to address our concerns.
We have set up new programmes and we hope that there will be a greater draw down on some of our research programmes. I would be more than happy if members were to promote these grants and entice people to take them up.
Will the Minister address the issue of the Teagasc advisory service?
There are no proposals to privatise the Teagasc advisory service. Concerns about the advisory service have arisen from a number of quarters. Sinn Féin and the local representatives may not think it would happen but the Teagasc centre at Ballinamore has closed. The cows are gone. This lovely facility is on offer at a reduced cost to the community or to the VEC. The people should avail of this opportunity, otherwise the land and the facility will be sold. Teagasc provides a service in Leitrim. Deputy Ned O'Keeffe is correct that the Teagasc advisory service has been second to none in providing a support mechanism for farmers. We all witnessed the work that was done to support people making their applications for single farm payments. I compliment the Teagasc services and my Department for ensuring that everyone was facilitated in this regard and I know many Deputies and Senators used the facility to ensure that people were looked after.
I assure the Deputy that there is no proposal to privatise Teagasc but the location of its offices is an issue. The three Ministers have taken the opportunity of meeting Teagasc to discuss this issue. I appreciate that people have a great personal affinity to having a service in their locality but we must ensure that staff do not work alone as this does not facilitate discussion on new ideas. For that reason, we must consider how we can support the Teagasc advisory services so that no member of staff will be isolated or lack the opportunity to access other staff. I accept, however, that 90% of staff are out on the job, visiting farms and giving seminars. We are examining ways of dealing with this controversial issue. I refer here to amalgamating a few of the Teagasc offices and providing an outreach clinic that will be available locally.
I would not allow the independent advisory role of Teagasc to be taken away. We need to increase our research capacity because Ireland falls below the European average on research. I would envisage linking up with the Minister for Education and Science to ensure that the institutes of technology, as well as the universities, can provide more facilities, particularly for PhD graduates to be involved in research. If we are to be at the cutting edge of research, particularly in the agri-food sector, we must provide people with facilities. A great deal of money is being invested in research and we will continue with that programme. Deputy Ned O'Keeffe is correct that we must achieve a balance in terms of the service that is being provided to individuals and research and development in the areas of plant health and agri-food.
I am aware that specialist positions in Teagasc are not being filled. These staff are important to farmers in my area and in Munster. There is no point in conducting research if one does not have the advisers to sell it to the producers. It is the service provided by Teagasc and not the location of its offices that is of primary importance. There is a tendency towards privatising the service and I want the Minister to kill that myth. I have made the point as to why the service provided by Teagasc should be independent and I will not elaborate on it further.
Subhead C deals with food safety and public health, animal health and welfare and plant health.
We have seen a reduction in the numbers of animals with TB and brucellosis. BSE will always be a matter of concern. We are acutely aware of the incidence of BSE in younger animals. There have been a small number of cases of BSE recently but the majority of them occurred prior to 1997. We carry out detailed investigations, particularly on animals born after 1997. Sometimes it has not been possible to identify the precise cause of BSE but on occasion we found bone spicule on the premises and equipment. Exposure to carcase material on neighbouring farms was identified in two cases and in one of those cases a prosecution is taking place. It is important that we give a clear signal that such things are unacceptable, intolerable and will be subjected to the full rigours of the law. The Department will provide such a signal. One of the exemplary examples of how the Department has dealt with issues involves the way it handled those who used angel dust. Use of the latter has been quashed and a few of the individuals spent some time on holiday at the State's pleasure.
Some of them are incarcerated in my constituency
That is correct. Some were also sent to Cavan. We sent out a clear signal that the use of angel dust is unacceptable.
There has been a good reduction in numbers relating to BSE, which we wish to see continue. Some of my colleagues and some farming organisations have asked if we should ease up on some of the existing restrictions. As soon as one considers doing so, something else arises. This causes some difficulties but, post-1997, we are acutely aware of the consequences of anything happening. I assure the Deputy that everything that can be done is being done from the point of view of investigations and prosecutions.
The issue of Johne's disease was raised by several Deputies. Deputy Ned O'Keeffe sees it in the dairy sector he represents in the south. After my appointment, the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy Browne, and I met our senior officials. We are examining methodologies to try to address this issue. We did not have Johne's disease until the introduction of free movement of animals after entry to the Common Market but nothing much can be done about that now. We have put together a pilot project but, unfortunately, have found it quite difficult to encourage farmers to participate. This is an issue of note and I will meet the president of the IFA to try to encourage him to persuade people to participate in the scheme. We must be acutely aware of the issue and must deal with it. Other European Union member states must also deal with Johne's disease.
I was not particularly aware of the issue regarding milk bottles. Perhaps I will get back to Deputy Ned O'Keeffe on the question.
This is quite an issue in Cork and it requires attention. Cork County Council's veterinary section has been concerned about it. I ask that it be investigated because I do not want a situation to break out like the current problem with school buses. This milk is not suitable for human consumption but it may be acceptable for manufacturing.
That is not factually correct.
Will the Minister investigate the matter?
Cork County Council has not been in contact with me about any concerns it might have about the school milk programme.
There is concern in Cork. I have been aware of it for the past nine months and I tabled a question in respect of it. I do not mind where the regional laboratories are located. They are an important facility in the modern age of agriculture, given the various and prevalent diseases. Staffing is an issue. The laboratories have not been properly staffed in Cork or other regions. I ask the Minister to examine the question of veterinary laboratories. I do not care if one is situated in Kilkenny, Clonmel or Kilrush, as long as it provides us with the facility to service the farming community's veterinary needs. The laboratories were a fabulous facility when they were first established.
I also inquired about IBR and BVD. These are both respiratory diseases.
I did not get that far yet. The Deputy has asked quite a number of questions on animal diseases. The question of amalgamating the laboratories is being examined. I anticipate that we will be in a position to make a decision on it fairly rapidly in order to provide an enhanced laboratory service for the farmers in the south. It is a good idea which is under active examination. We are also examining the possibility of some decentralisation work to provide a service. I do not have an issue with it.
I will investigate the matter in Cork. However, if a problem with milk in Cork exists, I would have been informed of it by the FSAI. Hence, there is nothing to say. No issue with milk exists in Cork from the point of view of health or disease. I do not want that impression to be given, particularly as this is a public meeting. However, if there is an issue in Cork, I will fully investigate it on the Deputy's behalf.
I accept the Minister's assurance.
Has the Minister finished?
I want to discuss the issue of BVD. It is intended to deal with BVD under the proposed voluntary herd health programme. This programme will deal with all animal health issues and we are discussing it with the stakeholders in an attempt to pursue it vigorously and get it on the agenda as soon as possible.
What about IBR?
The same applies. There are diseases such as Johne's and other pig diseases.
I want to ask about Aujeszky's disease and blue ear disease. I cannot understand why an Aujeszky's eradication programme is not in place. I understand that pig farmers would pay for the eradication of Aujeszky's at the rate of approximately €1 to €1.50. We have lost out on access to many markets because we are not free of Aujeszky's disease. The trade delegation that visited China with the Taoiseach last January found a market there for certain sectors of pigmeat which cannot be serviced because we do not have a Aujeszky's-free status. It is the same in Russia. I do not know why we do not address these issues.
We do.
I understand that pig farmers are prepared to pay for eradication.
Will the Minister investigate these issues?
As far as that disease is concerned, the Department arranged for a full round of testing in 2003. This resulted in the identification of 30 positive herds. Herd owners were advised of the actions they were obliged to take to deal with their cases. Discussions with the IFA on further steps took place recently. We will hopefully be able to finalise the required arrangements and give some support to all pig farmers. I will follow the matter up. I believe I have dealt with the questions relating to animal diseases.
I asked a question on food safety and animal health. The allocation in respect of the foot and mouth disease's general costs and compensation appears to have increased.
This is a contingency sum. We do not wish to spend it and have no intention of doing so, Deo volente.
That is fine.
I raised a specific query regarding scrapie and the issue of restocking. I would appreciate the Minister's comments on that issue. I have another two brief questions. In the Estimate published last November, the budget under subhead C was €170.6 million but this has now decreased. Can the Minister explain the change?
The Department has decided to change the sheep tagging regime and this is causing huge frustration, particularly in my part of the country. Why was the decision taken and why was such short notice given to farmers? The area I represent is one of the strongest sheep-rearing regions and considerable numbers of farmers have already purchased tags which will be obsolete from 1 July. Why has this happened? Why was the change to the sheep tagging regime not indicated well in advance? Will the Minister consider a waiver for those farmers who have already purchased tags and allow the new tagging regime to come into effect through natural wastage?
As a representative from County Donegal, I am acutely aware of sheep farmers' concerns and their annoyance about tagging. It was introduced in 2001 because of the foot and mouth issue. I am aware that people are annoyed about the number and type of tags. I will make two points on the issue. First, it has allowed full traceability. Second, there are proposals from the European Union which would, in my view, be more onerous on sheep farmers than those that are currently in place. Some minor changes regarding tags will come into effect. I have met all types of sheep farming representatives, not necessarily the IFA but all the organisations that represent sheep farmers. When I saw the proposal, I noticed a couple of aspects, particularly those relating to the flock recording process, that were quite complicated. Consequently, I have asked the Department to examine the issue in consultation with the stakeholders in order to amend this and make matters easier. As it stands, matters are complicated.
In addition, some major sheep farmers who keep many of their sheep indoors and who are early lamb producers have asked about the possibility of introducing the electronic tagging of sheep, which could be scanned and computerised. Producers who operate on a different scale wish to access and transmit the identification straight to the Department. We must examine this. Although a cost factor is involved, a number of progressive producers feel that this is the best way forward for them. The changes taking place from the beginning of the summer are minor. However, I undertook to examine the possibility of some simplification and improvements as well as examining the quality of tags.
I accept that. However, is there some kind of mechanism that could be put in place for farmers who have already purchased tags so that they can be used and filtered out of the system?
Does the Deputy mean the old tags should be used?
Yes. The notice given by the Department was quite short. Farmers had already purchased their supply of tags for the coming year and those tags are now obsolete.
I will examine the matter.
Regarding scrapie, the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, is the expert on the disease. Expenditure includes income support payments for flocks under the full depopulated scheme operated until October 2003. Large volumes of income loss payments will fall due to be made in the latter half of this year. Therefore, the money will need to be paid at the back end of the year. Is Deputy Naughten concerned about market value?
I am concerned about market value with regard to restocking. There were indications given by the Department that certain procedures would be put in place. I understand this is not and may not be the case.
Is the Deputy referring to the Crosby report?
Yes.
That report is causing me some angst. Those who make reports on behalf of any Department also take on the position of Minister for Finance. A particular issue arose which affected parts of Mayo, Wexford and Wicklow. Those affected were looking for the market value plus the equivalent of a half year's income which is paid in some circumstances. However, the IFA wanted even more money and it to be paid for a longer period, even though farmers had been fully compensated for the destocking of their flocks. We will have to look at this issue.
The Crosby report contains many recommendations. It recommended a figure of €36 over and above full compensation over three years. While I appreciate that this is a disease that has caused much angst among farmers, the Department is looking at the report, although it has not made a definitive decision. It will be difficult to look for full implementation of the recommendations at that level but we are in negotiations with the IFA on the matter.
Will the Minister look sympathetically at the restocking element? I will leave the matter in her capable hands.
I would like to return to the issue of Johne's disease which is common in my constituency. There are financial circumstances that must also be taken into consideration. There are a few farmers in my constituency who never had a problem with BSE before they restocked. They have ended up in a situation where they cannot sell some of the replacement animals, for example, in-calf heifers. If they make it known, nobody will buy their animals. The result is that they are way over quota. I know a farmer who should have only 40 cows but has 80. He does not have and cannot afford to buy a quota. I would appreciate it if the Minister would examine the issue of a buy-out scheme for such farmers who are facing extreme financial difficulty, although I do not expect her to give me an answer today.
The Chair has brought such matters to my attention.
Cork County Council is concerned about Johne's disease and the issue of school milk. Will the Minister investigate the matter?
Will she contact Cork County Council? The next item on the agenda is the subhead on market supports.
One of the elements is the land parcel identification scheme.
Yes.
I have come across issues related to output under this system on a number of occasions recently. There appears to be a repetition of mistakes where evidence is provided such as Land Registry documents regarding ownership, yet information on the land parcel is not corrected year after year. I know of one case which has been ongoing for three years. In the context of the single farm payment, will the Minister ensure all of these mistakes will be corrected, particularly where documentary evidence has been furnished?
We have had considerable teething problems during the years. People were claiming other people's parcels of land and maps were incorrect. It was an enormous undertaking. I remember a case where a mountain had disappeared because we had forgotten basic mathematics. There are no guarantees because the matter is so complex. However, if there is a particular case where there seems to be an anomaly, we will try to rectify it. If the Deputy gives me the details, we will try to sort the matter out. There are very few such cases left.
I will do so.
We will now turn to the subhead on income support for disadvantaged areas.
The budget for disadvantaged areas in terms of income support is reduced. In the context of the single farm payment, I presume there will be an increase in the number of applications within disadvantaged areas. It would be a good guess that people who possibly did not claim monies in the past may do so on this occasion, yet the Minister has predicted a lower out-turn in 2005 than in 2004. Does she know something that will happen at EU level that we do not? Will she comment on the question I asked her about the Common Agricultural Policy?
The figure for 2004 reflects a carry-over from 2003. Therefore, the real figure is contained in the 2005 Estimate. Anyone who is entitled to income support and validated will always be paid. Therefore, there will not be a problem if somebody new comes along.
We are examining the entire rural development package and less favoured areas, a matter about which Deputy Ferris has spoken. Many of the farmers concerned are small with more marginal lands. It is a very important source of funding for them. We receive a certain amount under the rural development package. It is up to member states to divide it accordingly and decide whether it wants to use the money to support those involved in forestry, the early retirement scheme or less favoured areas. There is a cap on the overall amount provided. I could decide that all of the money should be spent on less favoured areas, of which we have a considerable number. We have added Monaghan to the list this year and dealt with some annoying issues.
While there are winners and losers within the scheme, we should continue with what we have. However, I am aware that some other member states are enormous losers, particularly France and some of the new member states. Therefore, it is still up for consideration as to what we will do. It must also be appreciated that the European Court of Auditors carried out an investigation and that we must work within accepted parameters. However, a certain overall amount will be made available. Those with entitlements will be paid.
Is the Minister saying that no matter what way less favoured areas are designated at EU level — we will have to wait and see what happens in the negotiations — Ireland Inc. will not lose out?
It will all depend on how much money we receive under the rural development scheme. The financial perspectives will determine how much money will be made available for the single farm payment and the rural development scheme. If a smaller amount is made available for the agricultural budget, a political decision will have to be made. Farm income supports are very important. My instinct would be to look at people's income support and then consider rural development, which is an amalgam of a number of matters. Less favoured areas also form a part of that. The Commission has not told us, even if we still have the geographical spread, what the conditions of the scheme will be. Until those conditions are made available, I could not conclude any agreement. There will be a cap on the amount of money available to the country, per se. It will be our responsibility to determine whether it should go one way or another. We will also be obliged to work on the criteria that will be set down by the Commission. We have had much discussion on the matter but we may not be able to bring it to a conclusion just yet. Matters may remain as they are until there is a satisfactory outcome.
Is it agreed that we have concluded our deliberations on subhead E? Agreed. We will proceed to subhead F.
A couple of "low balls" are about to be lobbed in my direction in respect of the underspend in the budget. The first relates to disease reduction, which is a great thing, and the second relates to REPS. A considerable amount of money was made available last year for REPS. I distinctly recall mentioning to the select committee when I previously came before it that we were anxious to encourage people to take up REPS on the basis that there was an agreement at partnership level. However, the scheme had not been taken up. There were reasons for this, namely, that we were late obtaining sanction for the scheme from the Commission and that the consultants found it difficult to participate in the scheme. I believe everyone knows why the latter was the case.
There has been a huge increase in interest in REPS and the outlook for the next number of years in terms of rolling out the programme seems favourable. Quite a number of changes have been introduced to REPS, one of which relates to the organic sector — the Minister of State might comment on this matter later — and how we are allowing things to develop therein. We are pursuing REPS as an important factor both in terms of farm support — many small farmers are involved in the scheme — and from an environmental point of view. We look forward to reaching the target that has been set within the Estimate for REPS this year. A huge number of applications have been received and we are dealing with them as quickly as possible. I hope what I have said will reassure members in respect of this issue. We will be seeking a continuation of the REP scheme in due course and will be engaging in consultations in the autumn in the context of considering the framework for a new scheme.
One of the most critical investments that will be made this year under subhead F is the €1.5 million for the monitoring of water quality. I presume this will form part of the base line in respect of the nitrates directive. When we review this matter in four years' time and subject to our obtaining a derogation, one of the critical elements to be considered will be the groundwater directive. Is the Minister confident that an adequate evaluation, which will indicate whether any improvement has been made, has been carried out in respect of groundwater and that we will be in a position to produce evidence in Brussels in four years' time and make the argument for the retention of any derogation or of the current status in respect of the nitrates directive?
A sum of €1.5 million is being provided for the study this year and this will do exactly what the Deputy desires, namely, provide back-up research that will be made available to the Department. Some parts of the country will not have a groundwater issue, while others will do so. A substantial amount of money is being made available to deal with this ongoing programme during the current year and matters in respect of it will be progressed further. When we have hard evidence, we will be able to deal with the issues as they arise.
We will now proceed to subhead G which relates to land mobility.
Everyone has referred to this matter. I compliment Deputy Wilkinson on the work he has done. We had a preliminary discussion on the proposals and have made an evaluation ourselves.
There are a couple of issues that arise here. However, I do not want to pre-empt a discussion that may take place in due course. One of the issues to which I refer is indexation. The problem is that no European scheme has indexation. Another concern is that even if we were to take more people into the scheme at a particular level, it would only apply from the date of application. This means it would apply only to new applicants and would do nothing for others.
The other problem — I will be somewhat facetious at this point — is that this wonderful Government has increased social welfare pensions to such a degree that they have seriously outstripped farm retirement pensions. I am sure Deputy Naughten will admit that I am allowed to be facetious on occasion.
Perhaps the Minister might do the same job.
Concerns have arisen and we will discuss a number of them tomorrow in the Dáil as a number of parliamentary questions have been tabled in respect of this matter. I am considering streamlining the relationship between the Department of Social and Family Affairs and my Department. A great deal of work has been done in this area from an IT point of view and this will hopefully address other issues with which we have all been obliged to deal on a personal basis.
If I was to stick my neck out, I might say we may consider the value of the early retirement scheme. Its original value was to encourage farmers to move on and allow younger people to take up the scheme. In the old scheme, there were 10,000 people and there are only 2,500 in the second scheme. The 10,000 people who were catered for under the old scheme are the ones who are not happy. We tried to deal, to the best of our ability, with some of the issues that arose for these individuals in respect of single farm payments. I do not know if there is much leeway in this area but we will examine the proposals put forward by Deputy Wilkinson and the committee. I will also consider those put forward by my own committee.
Perhaps we should consider whether it is time to move towards a partnership model or offering other incentives for young people to go into farming. When I meet representatives of Macra Na Feirme I am informed that it is seeking further installation aid and a number of reductions in taxation. Is that the best way to encourage people to enter farming? I spoke to the French Minister recently and he is considering the matter because France is experiencing the same problem. This is a scheme that has been dealt with to the great satisfaction of some people but not to that of others. If, on one hand, we are encouraging people to stay at work longer and, on the other, encouraging them not to do so, something must be done. Farm profiles indicate that many progressive farmers who are 50 years of age might have a young family to care for and may have a son or daughter who has finished college and who may wish to become involved in farming. We need to evaluate where we stand on the scheme. I am not suggesting that we abandon the scheme but perhaps its orientation should be different.
I will communicate further with the committee on this controversial issue. I am aware that those who are pursuing the matters to which I referred earlier have divided among themselves because they are not happy with the methodologies being employed by their representatives. That makes life difficult for me because I am trying to discover where we stand. A considerable amount of money has been made available. Many of the 10,000 who initially entered the scheme will probably be leaving it quite soon.
The position relating to the farm retirement scheme is fluid. I appreciate that it is causing concern because if a person has a non-indexed income, problems arise as the cost of living rises. When it was introduced, it was a great scheme and some people probably got a great deal out of it. Many farmers did not have pension plans and people have only recently been able to buy A1 stamps and obtain their entitlements. Problems had previously arisen in this regard because if people were applying for non-contributory pensions, their land was taken into consideration as an asset and this led to their being refused such pensions. For many of them, it was a great way to resolve their affairs. As matters have progressed, however, people have obtained access to contributory pensions, including private pension plans, and see that the social welfare pension is better than the farm retirement pension. The latter can cause problems. Even though they continue to keep an asset, that does not solve the problem. It is a matter we must flesh out. Between ourselves, the members and the organisations, perhaps we might be able to arrive at a better solution in respect of the scheme.
The Minister is correct. Many younger farmers, in addition to being involved in the contributory pension scheme, are participating in private pension schemes. That changes the position considerably. In the course of the Minister's travels, perhaps she might talk to the likes of FBD Insurance, which has strong ties with the agricultural community, regarding the promotion of private pensions from the point of view of the tax incentives involved. Such measures would not suit all farmers but they would suit a certain element of the farming population. I do not know if that message is getting out to the self-employed and to members of the agricultural community.
The Deputy is correct. The Minister for Social and Family Affairs would be pursuing that on a regular basis. In recent years, that Department has been trying to encourage people in the area of private pensions policy. There was a pensions roadshow two years ago at which we tried to encourage people to consider the matter of private pensions. FBD Insurance, the IFA and the ICMSA were participants in the roadshow. All of the organisations were part of that drive. As members will be aware, it is difficult to get the message across but perhaps we, in conjunction with the Pensions Board, which drove the issue at the time, could reconsider the matter and identify a specific measure. I am sure I still have a few friends in the Department of Social and Family Affairs who I could entice to provide a farm-specific type of scheme. The Deputy is correct in saying that we must encourage people into the scheme.
There are many desirable support mechanisms for young farmers within the taxation framework. I refer here to capital acquisition tax, stock relief and increased grant aid for younger farmers. It is recognised that there is a need to support younger farmers. Between the jigs and the reels, perhaps we will seek the most effective and efficient way of dealing with this issue.
Are there other questions on subhead G?
I compliment the Department on the administration of those schemes. In recent years it has streamlined them, although there is always the odd person who will try his or her hand. The administration of subheads D to G, inclusive, must be admired from an efficiency perspective. I congratulate the Minister and the Department's officials for the success of those schemes, for the administration and streamlining of them and for the simplicity of their handling. Only a small percentage of farmers were in difficulty and they are like the bad weather.
As there are no other questions, we will move on to subhead H — development of agriculture and food.
Deputy Upton inquired about the amenities in the horticulture sector. That is worth €450 million per annum to the economy. One does not need statistics to see the expansion in this area, particularly if one travels throughout the country and witnesses the increase in the number of garden centres and the growth of nursery stock industry. Grant assistance is available for nurseries through the horticulture development programme.
On horticulture in general, €3.6 million is provided for capital investment, specialised plant and equipment and commercial horticulture. A total of €3.107 million was paid to 97 applicants in 2004. The Minister has indicated that if savings emerge elsewhere, we will look at increasing the amount for this important scheme for which there is a high demand. The high demand shows the confidence in the horticulture industry. We receive a range of proposals to increase the range of products available.
Deputy Upton also referred to Bord Glas being amalgamated with Bord Bia. The Minister stated that this was a seamless transition. It is working well. Within Bord Bia, there is a specialist sub-board on horticulture and a horticulture director. We know from our ongoing contact, both at ministerial and official levels, that the amalgamation is working well and that the Bord Glas element of Bord Bia is strong.
Deputy Naughten inquired about funding for the organic sector. The Minister, Deputy Coughlan, referred to the importance of REPS for the organic sector. Specifically, an organic farmer, on top of the basis REPS rate, receives an additional €181 per hectare up to 55 hectares during the two-year conversion period and €91 per hectare once he or she has reached full organic status. Thus an organic farmer with 55 hectares gets an annual payment of €18,505 a year for the first two years and €13,555 each year throughout the rest of his or her time in the scheme. In 2004 organic farmers got €4 million in REPS payments. Since REPS commenced in 1994 it has delivered some €31 million to this small sector.
Some €1.651 million is also provided for a scheme of grant aid for organic operators, both producers and processors, for investment in on-farm and off-farm equipment and facilities. The organic market has been small. In recent years there has been strong growth. At retail level it was worth €38 million to the economy in 2003. It is estimated that in the medium term the organic food market will grow by in the region of 10% per annum. That will not be comprised solely of home produced product.
Some time ago the Department established a national steering group the remit of which is to examine the area of marketing, education and training. That work is ongoing and is coming to a conclusion. It is important work in pointing the direction of the sector for the future. An organic weekend will take place in October and I am sure the committee will participate fully in promoting that important event.
Teagasc, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and Bord Bia have issued publications important in the dissemination of information and advice to people entering organic farming and those who have already participated in that type of farming. Teagasc run organic farming courses. Last year we had seven demonstration farms. Their number will be increasing to 12 this year. There is a Teagasc national network of monitor farms, which are very important. Teagasc has also organised courses which are FETAC accredited — an important route to go — and a college in Drumcollagher, County Limerick, is providing FETAC courses specifically for the organic sector.
That dissemination of information, the financial support available through the schemes operated by the Department, the education and training and the work of the steering group is important in giving a strong foundation to the organic sector for the future. With the introduction of the single payment and the security of individual farmers knowing their basic annual income, more farmers will take the option of venturing into the organic farming sector. I addressed a conference last week in the midlands on alternative farm enterprises where there was considerable interest in the organic sector and where the different interest groups, both statutory agencies and voluntary bodies, were represented.
I thank the Minister of State for that report on this matter. I welcome the injection of funds into the organic area. There is something of a catch-22 because until the price of the organic product comes down, as far as the consumer is concerned, the market will not open up. A push is needed to get greater investment into the area, perhaps increase the production and, therefore, bring down price. Ireland is also importing a substantial amount of organic produce. This significant existing marketing opportunity needs to be promoted, encouraged and invested in. The consumer will not buy organic cabbage, meat, etc., if he or she can buy the alternative for half the price. Unfortunately, that is the current position.
Considering the imports arriving, no doubt significant potential exists for the development of the organic sector. There is also considerable potential for the development of the free-range sector and the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, and the Minister of State, Deputy Brendan Smith, have also spoken about this matter. This is one area where there is——
Did the Deputy ever visit Termonfeckin?
No. We will, I hope, have the opportunity to do so later this year. I agree that this can be developed. It does not involve the same input costs or lack of return associated with organic yields.
I asked the Minister a question regarding the €1 million underspend in 2004 and she has not answered it. I will clarify what I meant. In 2003 we allocated €661,000, in 2004 we allocated €1.4 million and in 2005 we are allocating €1.7 million. Last year the outturn was less than €400,000. What is the point in increasing the allocation? We have nearly trebled the budget and the spend is still only 30% of it. We can clap ourselves on the back and think it is great that we are allocating so much money but there is not much point in doing so unless it can be drawn down and unless there is some mechanism for spending it. The Minister might comment on that matter.
Perhaps the Minister could tell us when we can hope for a decision on the criteria regarding the specification of storage facilities and an announcement of an increased grant in line with the Brosnan proposals or over and above that in some parts of the country? I refer, in particular, to areas at the far end of my constituency where additional restrictions are in place.
No country in the world is more organic, in terms of produce, than Ireland. The current climate gives us more organic produce than that to which we are entitled. Practically everything produced in Ireland is organic and must compete against cheap organic imports from South America and the Far East. How can it be guaranteed that those imports are organic?
On Deputy Naughten's point regarding funding, the Government deserves a clap on the back for providing adequate funding. This is particularly true in light of the fact that people in other fora complain about lack of funding for different schemes. In demand-led schemes, there may be instances where money has been allocated that has not been drawn down.
On Deputy Upton's point regarding imports, there is a sizeable proportion of imports in the organic sector. The fact that imports are arriving here shows that there is a market here for Irish organic products as well. They may be somewhat more expensive for the consumer but given the high level of importation, we could be replacing the imports with home grown organic products. I welcome Deputy Naughten's praise for providing adequate funding for all schemes.
I congratulate Deputy Brendan Smith on his appointment as Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food. He is doing a fine job and I admire him for it.
I would like to know the source of organic imports. The Minister of State is very interesting and I follow his speeches but the food industry in Ireland is all over the place and it is time we had a single agency controlling it. At present, there are ten or 12 agencies dealing with food in the State area. When I visited Oslo in January, one of the people who exports mussels from Bantry met me and asked when we were going to co-ordinate the food industry. He said the days were gone when Tesco and other multiples would deal with five or six different agencies. Dealing with fish without dealing with food or vice versa means we are going nowhere. It is time to co-ordinate the food industry in Ireland under one agency. It will then be possible to develop it. It is not a very big industry, given that we are talking about between €6 billion and €10 billion. These are areas that must be addressed in the interests of the community. That should be our policy and I am amazed that we have not done something about it.
On Deputy Ned O'Keeffe's question regarding what products are coming in, some of them are imported to meet demand in the off season when we do not grow them. A substantial proportion of product comes from the Netherlands. Products also come from a large number of other countries. I can obtain the details for the Deputy.
What are the products? Do they include bananas and oranges?
They include dried fruits, cereals and fruit.
I gravely doubt that anything organic comes from Holland.
Some of the fruits are imported from Holland. There are two issues at play here, namely, what is free range and what is organic. People involved in free range production say that the amount of work involved in being truly organic is hardly worth the effort, particularly in the case of livestock production. I was very impressed by a young man I met, a craft butcher, who has created jobs for 20 people in free range production. He allows his turkeys out so that they have what is natural plus grain and this means that fattening them takes four weeks longer than is the case with other methods. However, he says it is not organic because there are so many determinations of what is organic.
Deputy Ned O'Keeffe is right when he says most of what we produce is free range. Nearly all our livestock is reared on grassland, which could not be more organic. We must, therefore, be very careful not to get tied up in all sorts of empires on one side or the other. True organic production, especially of livestock, is difficult and expensive. I am equally an advocate of free range production and that is also very important. I recently met some cheese producers who amalgamated a Brie and a blue cheese to produce a new Wicklow cheese, which is organic. The milk they use can be easily determined because they use a great deal of goat milk.
The bottom line is labelling and that is very much part of what is happening. I had hoped that my labelling legislation would have been enacted by now. It was to go through the Department of Health and Children. If I cannot get it moving, I will introduce it myself. I will not wait.
The Minister is a decision maker
There is no point in hanging around. Labels must include the origin of products, date of slaughter, place of manufacture and so on. We also need to look at calorie content. This is an opportunity to go beyond some of the work that has been done and, if necessary, we can always return to it.
Another issue with which it is difficult to come to terms is substantial transformation. The European Union uses the latter in all its directives. Substantial transformation is the bottom line in this area and there would not be much support among our colleagues in Europe for circumventing it. Equally, we need to be very careful not to substantially transform ourselves out of the market when it comes to exporting to places such as France.
In the poultry sector, the Minister of State, Deputy Brendan Smith, and I have been involved in meeting our own poultry producers, and substantial transformation is not something in which people are involved. Products were put in front of me and I was asked to pick out what was truly Irish, sourced in Ireland and original to Ireland. It was easy to say in the case of three products but in the case of two others I could not do so because the chickens came from Eastern Europe, were killed in Germany and then parts of them were processed in Ireland. There was nothing wrong with these birds and all the relevant EU directives had been complied with in respect of them. However, they were substantially transformed and, therefore, were deemed to have originated in Ireland. That causes problems. However, substantial transformation has allowed us to get into other markets. Equally, however, one needs to be very careful, particularly regarding France, where the farmers become apoplectic if anybody gets their produce a supermarket before them.
Labelling is an issue. Date of kill, origin and calorie content must be included. One of the issues is the way labels are presented. If it is stated on a packet that it contains so many calories per 100 kg, for example, one wonders how one is supposed to multiply and divide this to work out the calorie content of the packet as opposed to the calorie content of a large 100 kg bag. I learned about this in the United States, where one does not need a magnifying glass to read labels. Legislation will be introduced, if required, because labelling is important from the point of view of both consumers and retailers. I will examine the issue of substantial transformation and while we may not get much help, the Commission has stated that we can do what we want at home. That is what we will do.
The amount drawn down under the farm waste management scheme has reduced because farmers are not stupid. They will not draw down from a scheme they know will change. Farmers are not availing of the scheme because they are awaiting the outcome of the nitrates action plan. We are examining all the permutations, including the provision of grant aid to livestock farmers. I am equally concerned about the pig and poultry sectors. Innovative proposals are being examined regarding litter and work is being done on the pig industry because the farmers involved need help. Many of them operate within EPA parameters but they have no spread lands and that is a serious issue in the context of maintaining the industry.
These are significant issues and we are examining alternatives, including outwintering pads and small livestock units, with which some people disagree. Ireland will not be expected to implement the nitrates directive instantly. We are working on a timeframe, which should provide for support and help for farmers over three or four years so that they can get sorted. However, the support will have to stop then. I have learned in the past that if one proceeds with a scheme over an agreed timeframe, nobody bothers availing of it during the first year. However, everybody applies during the final year and one is forced to carry over a capital fund to which one is not entitled, even though the money might be better spent elsewhere. I hope we will have an indication of where we stand and what is needed in this regard over the summer.
The issue of specification has been discussed. If a tank bursts and it is found that the specification was not correct, the first port of call is the Department to find out why it was not built to specification. It took 20 years for the Ballyshannon area to recover after a piggery almost collapsed into the local river. The area was decimated and it caused nothing but trouble. I do not want a repeat of that. Safety issues, including the access of children to farms, must be addressed in this regard. Perhaps other issues must be addressed, for example, appreciating the current costs of providing tanks. However, we will consider all the issues involved, even though the specifications, parameters and supports have been examined. Farmers must be given more support.
I agree with the Minister that labels should display place of manufacture and country of origin. Approximately 130,000 farmers are registered but only 20,000 have economically viable farms. I have strong reservations regarding whether earthen pads and lagoons will work under the nitrates directive. The Danish model has been mentioned in the Irish Farmers’ Journal and it might best suit Ireland’s intensive farmers. I come from an intensive farming area and I have contacted officials in the Department and in Brussels about the directive. However, the amount expended by the Department on grant aid to farmers is miserable and there is no way the 20,000 farmers to whom I refer will meet the requirements — including those relating to the provision of storage facilities and so on — of the directive. If this matter is not resolved and if the directive is implemented without the provision of appropriate grant aid, farmers will avail of the early retirement scheme or other schemes offered by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. A sum of €38.8 million will go nowhere.
The farm investment scheme is a disaster. I spoke to a farmer recently who installed a new milking parlour at a cost of €150,000 to keep pace with the modern farming world. He received a grant of €20,000. Perhaps no grants should be provided but if they are, the Department should be realistic. I do not blame the Minister because I have never encountered a person more switched on to agriculture but farmers are being asked to rationalise their businesses. We have a role to play and it is our job to give leadership. Will the Minister review the provision of grant aid? The Irish Farmers Monthly reported that €104 million was returned last year. As the Minister said, one would feel like shooting those who handed the money back. The agriculture industry will be called on again to stabilise the economy and that day may not be far away.
We are concerned about the take-up of the forestry programme. While there is angst about the programme, it will not change and people should avail of it. Biodiversity is important but it will not happen unless forests are grown. The Minister of State and I will continue to encourage farmers to enter the forestry sector. People will not continue to pay $58 a barrel for oil and we will have to drive this programme. The Minister for Finance is more than supportive of alternative energy projects and enterprises but it is time we stopped the small efforts. A big bang is needed to do something about this. Supplementary incomes will also be generated by alternative crop production. Deputy Ferris is anxious about this issue. He will jump up and down later in the year about under expenditure in forestry but that will continue unless people become involved in the area. I am anxious that they should do so.
Is there a restriction on the afforestation of arable land? For example, good land in my area is being planted and that is desperate. Plenty of other land could be used.
It is problematic to plant forests in SACs and NHAs. An EU audit committee pointed out that major support mechanisms, including 100% grants over 25 years and tax write-offs, are available to invest in forestry in Ireland. Forestry is a good farming enterprise. No restriction is placed on the type of land that can be planted. However, the European Court of Auditors indicated in a recent report that one of its concerns was that marginal land was being used under the scheme and that agricultural land was not being removed. There is nothing to stop people planting land. We are trying to encourage more broadleaf planting because a concern was also raised about this. Restrictions are placed on marginal land, SACs and NHAs. People can plant in these areas but a grant will not be provided. The best land can be planted.
I wish to raise two issues, one of which I referred to during the most recent Question Time with the Minister in the Dáil. The planning regulations relating to planting have caused difficulty in communities. Individuals or small communities are literally isolated or——
Or surrounded.
——or surrounded by forestry, which causes huge problems. A sensible and practical approach must be taken to this matter, in addition to addressing the need for afforestation. Individual homes should not be completely isolated from the rest of the community because of the type of afforestation being employed and we should have a structure in place which takes cognisance of that.
A second matter which is becoming a difficulty is the provision of an outlet for the thinnings.
Yes.
A number of different proposals have been made and I am sure they have been forwarded to the Office of Public Works. One proposal is to use woodchips from thinnings to fuel either combined heating and power systems or heating systems in some of the new offices which the Office of Public Works will develop throughout the country.
That is correct.
This matter is currently very close to the heart of the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy Brendan Smith. I could not resist referring to decentralisation. In that context, perhaps the Minister might discuss the issue with the Minister of State as well as the Minister for Finance to ensure that alternative fuel sources are considered when constructing these buildings.
The Department of Education and Science has also been involved in this area. My local school is considering its boiler's suitability in this regard. I was not in office in time to provide boilers for the Deputy in Roscommon but I look forward to going there and opening the place on his behalf. He will not be averse to this proposal from the OPW. Some people like taking out fuel but we will put it in. The Deputy is correct. We must examine alternatives, some of which are not economically viable. However, the situation also gives rise to opportunities. The Deputy is correct that there is an issue with thinnings.
The issue of planning permission is not the responsibility of this Department. Previously, there was much concern that proposals for planning were not even advertised in the local newspapers. That situation no longer obtains. However, I have seen forestry planted in areas little bigger than a window-box. Often, one can get a protocol between people to provide some space. Sometimes it is easier with Coillte than with private foresters, because of its accountability. However, if particular concerns exist, I will raise the matter again with the Minister of State and ask him to speak to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government about it.
Subhead J deals with Teagasc and grant-in-aid for general expenses. Are there any questions on this area?
We have already covered it.
Subhead K is concerned with Bord Bia. Are there any questions?
I have a question about the Bord Bia emblem on bacon products such as rashers and other items in shops. The two major players in the packing industry, namely, Galtee and Denny's, do not carry the emblem. The Minister should become involved and speak to the two organisations concerned. Farmers pay substantial money to Bord Bia, while, simultaneously, these companies will not support it by using its emblem or by using Irish produce. This is an issue. I regret that the Minister was not in office for much of what happened in the Irish food industry last year. It would be a different industry if Greencore or Waterford had been taken in hand.
We recently launched the new bacon emblem. If it is not being picked up, I can talk to the companies again about the matter.
The Minister may be obliged to do more than talk to them.
I do not own them and I am not a shareholder.
The Minister handled Greencore very well.
The committee has moved on to subhead L, which refers to the world food programme. Are there any questions? No. Subhead M deals with other services.
There is an allocation towards the production and marketing of honey under this subhead. If I had a couple of beehives in the back garden, would I be eligible? I also have a serious follow-on question. A major issue has arisen with food poverty, particularly in urban areas. Can the Department encourage people to grow their own fruit and vegetables? Is any grant aid available for it, particularly for small urban allotments where people would not be eligible for serious grant aid? In recent months the issue of food poverty has been significantly highlighted by, for example, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. Issues exist with food availability, transport and planning. Can people, who often have fine back gardens, be encouraged or given aid in some way to grow their own vegetables and fruit?
Éamon De Valera provided such encouragement in his day. The Deputy is correct and there is an issue with food poverty which correlates closely with the matter of obesity. The Taoiseach has indicated that a solution must include many people such as parents, children and teachers. Hardly anyone studies home economics anymore in schools. The Minister of State just mentioned a new programme called the food dude healthy eating programme, which tries to interest young people in food that is healthy. I am unsure whether it is possible to return to the old allotments system. People may not even know how to grow anything. Although some people have a fabulous interest in gardening, others do not and some, despite their interest, are useless at it. Perhaps we could approach the issue through the Leader programmes.
Is there any chance of introducing a headage payment for bees?
No. However, this year the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy Brendan Smith, has the honour of hosting a wonderful world beekeepers congress in the RDS in August.
With 6,000 visitors.
They will swarm about the place.
The money is used to market honey.
We will proceed to subhead N, which concerns appropriations-in-aid.
I have a question regarding subhead N6. There appears to be a projected fall in incoming funds. Is this because of the relocation? Under subhead N10, the 2005 Estimate predicts a reduced income from Land Commission receipts. Given that the Land Bill will be enacted later this year, I would have expected to see more receipts coming into the Land Commission, rather than a fall off in income.
That figure was produced at a time when the Department did not know exactly when the Land Bill would be passed. It may take some time to access people and contact them. However, the Deputy is correct to state that there will probably be an increase in income. The explanation for the reduction is that, as in other areas, people waited for the outcome of the discount scheme before deciding to contact the Department. Subhead N6 includes receipts from sales of vaccines, livestock and other items from veterinary research laboratories. This includes Abbotstown, which will no longer be in commission. Consequently, there will be a reduction in receipts. The committee has not missed much.
If the Minister has concluded, the three spokespersons have the opportunity to make some concluding remarks if they so wish.
I thank the Department's officials for their assistance and I look forward to giving them a more difficult time tomorrow.
I thank the Minister, the Minister of State and the officials for being very helpful with their answers.
I also thank the Minister, the Minister of State and the officials.
Does the Minister wish to make a closing statement?
I thank the select committee for facilitating this discussion. It is always very helpful to find out from where everyone is coming. There are a number of issues on which I have promised to get back to members such as the Crosby report, sheep tagging, Johne's disease, labelling and ploughing. We will have an ongoing discussion on these and other issues. The Minister of State and I appreciate our interaction with the committee. It is important there is such interaction as somebody always comes up with a little gem and we are more than happy to take it on board.
The Estimate provided will be more than adequate to deal with the needs of the agricultural community this year.