Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD debate -
Thursday, 3 Jun 2010

Annual Output Statement 2010

Our purpose today is to consider the Revised Estimate for Vote 31 and the annual output statement for 2010 for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. On behalf of the committee, I welcome the Minister, Deputy Smith, and his officials. As part of the budgetary process of reform initiated by the then Minister for Finance in 2006, each Department must publish an annual output statement for consideration by Oireachtas committees.

In line with this an output statement has been circulated to the committee along with a briefing for members. This initiative aims to facilitate better parliamentary involvement in the budgetary and Estimates process. As I pointed out last year, Estimate debates should have a particular focus on the outputs to be achieved for the moneys being voted.

The Minister will make an opening statement, followed by statements by spokespersons and then an open discussion through a question-and-answer session. Is that agreed? Agreed.

As was the case last year, the 2010 Estimate is presented against the background of continuing global economic upheaval, contraction in the economy and serious concerns with the public finances. The impact of the global downturn on the Irish economy has been particularly severe. Ireland has experienced double-digit economic contraction and significantly increased unemployment. The Government has taken decisive action over the past 18 months on those areas which are under its control, actions which have restored some considerable stability.

The latest Exchequer returns show revenues are now on target and provide evidence we have reached a turning point in the economy. Despite this progress, events internationally remove any scope for complacency. We must continue to take the necessary corrective action to address the situation in the public finances to protect competitiveness, restore the credit system and stimulate job creation and economic confidence.

In framing the 2010 budget for my Department, the Government recognised the difficulties that agriculture has faced and was mindful of the low commodity prices and poor weather which had an adverse impact on farmers' incomes in 2009. While it is important to maintain discipline over spending I am pleased to say that there are no reductions in funding this year to vital agricultural support schemes and the funding of, for example, the disadvantaged areas scheme, suckler cow welfare scheme and REPS are being maintained at 2009 levels.

The objective of the 2010 Vote is to facilitate the maximum contribution to the national economy of the agriculture, food, fisheries and forestry sectors while operating within the financial constraints. Despite the economic and financial difficulties we are experiencing, the 2010 Exchequer allocation for the Department is €1.785 billion or €1.403 billion net when receipts totalling €382 million are taken into account. When combined with the €1.288 billion in EU funds which is paid through the Department, this brings to over €3 billion the public funds being made available in 2010. This is a very substantial level of support by any standard and shows that the Government continues to invest in the productive sectors of the economy, particularly those with the potential to generate significant foreign earnings, including agriculture and the wider agri-food sector.

The Department's overall Vote for 2010 shows a reduction of approximately €152 million on the 2009 outturn. While on the face of it, this represents a significant reduction in the provisional outturn for 2009, the reduction can be accounted by exceptional items. There was a significant reduction in the operating costs of the Department which is reflected in the administrative budget and payroll adjustments. There was also a significantly reduced requirement for funding for costs associated with restoring market confidence following the pigmeat recall scheme. In addition, €45 million of payments on the farm waste management scheme was brought forward and paid towards the end of 2009. With the payment of €190 million in grants to farmers under the farm waste management scheme made in January this year, the total Exchequer funding for this scheme has exceeded €1 billion.

I will now briefly summarise the financial allocations for 2010 on the basis of the five strategic programmes which are set out in the annual output statement, AOS. The statement links the resources required for the programmes with the key outputs to be achieved in 2010 and includes information on the outcomes achieved in 2009.

I should mention at the outset that the Department's administrative budget costs are allocated across all of the four AOS programmes. The allocation of €257.6 million in 2010 reflects reductions in staff numbers and pay cuts amounting to approximately €33 million. The administrative budget accounts for just over 8% of the estimated total combine EU and Exchequer spend for the Department this year.

Programme 1 in the AOS focuses on establishing the policy framework to develop an internationally competitive, innovative and consumer focussed agri-food and fishing sector. This programme involves total expenditure of €341 million in 2010.

Policy in regard to agriculture and rural development is largely determined by the EU's Common Agricultural Policy. I am pleased to report that over the past year, Ireland has fared relatively well in terms of additional EU funding. We received a €26 million share of the European economic recovery package. This money will be split 50:50 between the agri-environment options scheme and the rural broadband reach scheme which will be implemented by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.

I also secured a once-off emergency aid package to assist the dairy sector following the fall in milk prices amounting to €11.5 million of the total package of €300 million that was made available for the dairy sector in the 2010 budget. This funding was distributed as a flat rate payment of €590 to each dairy farmer who produced milk during the 2008-09 milk quota year. Other measures in the aid package included the option for member states to implement a quota buying-up scheme for the quota years 2009-10 and 2010-11. The EU has also been very active in supporting the milk sector through the market support measures. The committee will be aware that I actively campaigned in the Council and sought the support of ministerial colleagues for the extended use of intervention and aids for private storage in particular, both of which were critical last year in supporting prices during a very difficult period.

Under the final agreement on the health check of the CAP, I secured additional funds of €25 million annually from unspent CAP funds for three year from 2010. These funds are being allocated via three schemes which I announced in recent months. They include a dairy efficiency programme which involves the payment of €6 million per annum over the next three years to eligible dairy farmers who actively participate in the programme with a view to achieving significant efficiency gains on their farms. There is also a grassland sheep scheme involving the payment of €18 million per annum to sheep farmers for each of the three years 2010, 2011 and 2012. In addition, there is the Burren life-farming for conservation programme, providing €1 million each year for the next three years to support high environmental value farming in the Burren that is one of Ireland's outstanding landscapes and is world renowned.

At national level, the Government's commitment to fostering an innovation culture in our agri-food industry is evident in the €175 million which is provided in the Vote for research, education and training together with grants-in-aid to Teagasc and the Marine Institute. The development of a sustainable bio-economy is a vital element in our national economic development and investment in research, development and innovation is a critical component of this approach. This programme includes a €35 million capital grant provision as part of a multi-annual investment package to fund investment in the dairy, beef, sheep meat and other sectors. Some €20 million of the 2010 allocation is earmarked for the payment of grants to the Irish dairy processing sector. This is part of the €114 million in national grant assistance package which was awarded in 2007. A further €10 million is for the beef and sheep meat sectors. This is part of the supports announced for these sectors in 2009 that will trigger investment of €170 million in these vital sectors over a number of years.

I am particularly pleased that the 2010 Estimates include the first instalment, €9.5 million, of the €100 million food industry competitiveness and marketing fund announced in budget 2010. This is a critical sector which employs 45,000 people and supports exports of some €7 billion annually. A sum of €7 million will be provided to Enterprise Ireland towards measures aimed at competitiveness issues and €2.5 million will be provided to support Bord Bia marketing initiatives. The focus of the €7 million will be on enabling key exporting companies to adopt sustainable best-in-class lean business practices. Leading food companies will also be assisted in developing leadership and management capability to best international standards. In addition, €2.5 million is being provided to Bord Bia to be used in marketing initiatives principally aimed at assisting the industry to broaden its export reach. These include the recent highly successful Marketplace 2010 event hosted by Bord Bia which has as a target the promotion of €10 million in new business.

A second Bord Bia-Smurfit UCD programme is also planned following the success of the 2009-10 programme where 25 graduates have undertaken assignments in 12 locations with 113 food and beverage companies. A particular first in 2010 is the Bord Bia food and drink summit, which was organised in co-operation with Harvard University and the food and drink industry and will provide a very useful input into the 2020 strategy process currently underway.

In addition, funding of €4.3 million and €2 million is being provided respectively in 2010 for the quality assurance initiatives administered by Bord Bia and for the healthy eating initiative in schools. Finally, in addition to the €151 million that I have included for Teagasc and the Marine Institute, I have allocated a further €48 million by way of grants-in-aid for BIM and Bord Bia. Each of these agencies undertake important ongoing work in the development of the sector and in promotion quality Irish food products at home and abroad.

In so far as fisheries is concerned, 2009 was dominated by the introduction of the new control regulation for EU fisheries, ensuring compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy and the review of the CFP. Our priority during the negotiations leading up to the adoption of the new control framework was to secure measures that gave our fishermen confidence that there is real intent and the necessary tools in place that will address illegal fishing in the waters around our coast. I am satisfied that the measures adopted will help to deliver the level playing field on control that is necessary to rebuild fish stocks and protect the livelihood of our coastal communities which are fully dependent for their future on healthy fish stocks fished sustainable by all operators in our waters.

The process for the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy was launched by the EU Commission in April 2009 and following an extensive nationwide consultative process, contributions and written submissions from stakeholders were considered in the preparation of Ireland's submission. Additionally, in December 2009 a balanced and fair package of fishing opportunities for 2010 was successfully negotiated in extremely difficult circumstances after a marathon session at the EU Fisheries Council in Brussels.

This year is being dominated by the ongoing process at EU level on reform of the CFP which will shape the landscape of the European fishing industry for many years to come and has already been the subject of extensive debate at EU level. It has been clear for some time and that some member states have agendas which, if adopted, would be detrimental to Ireland's fishermen. My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Connick, is robustly promoting Ireland's position across a range of key proposals and is actively pursuing alliances with like-minded member states to ensure Ireland's best interests are served in the new policy.

Other priorities issues for 2010 will be to continue to support initiatives to secure four-party multilateral arrangements on the management of the mackerel stock in which we face challenging negotiations during the latter part of the year. Preparatory work has already commenced on the fishing possibilities for 2011. This will again be finalised at the December Fisheries Council. Taken together, the €341 million expenditure proposed under this heading represents a substantial investment in the creation of a coherent policy and development framework for the agri-food and fisheries sectors and a vote of confidence in the future by the Government.

Programme 2 in the AOS relates to the maintenance of the highest possible standards of food safety, consumer protection, animal health and welfare and fish and plant health. This is the bedrock upon which consumer confidence in the agri-food and fisheries sectors, and in particular, our export trade, is built and expenditure under this heading in 2010 will amount to some €313 million. As part of this programme, €153 million is provided from within subhead C of the Vote in respect of food safety and public health, animal health and welfare and plant health measures.

With regard to disease eradication, I am pleased to report an improvement in the overall disease situation in the country and, in particular, in the case of brucellosis. We have not had a confirmed case of brucellosis since April 2006 and this enabled us to secure officially brucellosis-free status last July. We have significantly scaled down our testing programme, with the result that around 1.35 million cattle are no longer required to be tested for brucellosis on an annual basis. There are considerable benefits arising from these changes, particularly the significant reduction in the cost of testing to farmers and restrictions on trade in cattle generally. The total financial saving from the changes is estimated to be in the region of €5 million per annum.

While bovine TB is a much more intractable disease, particularly in view of presence of infection in wildlife, I am pleased to report that there has also been a significant improvement in the incidence of the disease last year. Reactor numbers fell to 23,800 compared with almost 30,000 in 2008. The overall downward trend continues and the number of reactors last year was approximately 50% of the levels recorded in 1999. The lower incidence of the disease is being maintained in 2010.

I am also acutely conscious of the need for continued vigilance against exotic diseases from abroad. My Department has comprehensive contingency plans in place to deal with any outbreaks and is closely monitoring the progress of such diseases globally. I am confident that our control systems are efficient and robust. The incidence of BSE continues to fall and the number of cases has declined from 333 in 2002 to just 1 so far in 2010.

This programme also includes €33 million for the animal welfare and breeding scheme for suckler cows. The scheme is designed to secure higher welfare standards, improve breeding information and, as a result, improve quality across the national beef herd which will be reflected in higher returns to the producer. Funding in the 2010 budget will pay for eligible animals born in 2009 along with any remaining eligible calves born in 2008. As a result of financial constraints, the rate of payment had to be reduced to €40 for calves born from 2009 onwards, but I believe that the scheme will make a very valuable contribution to beef production. There are currently 51,500 farmers participating in the scheme.

Programme No. 3 relates to the promotion of economic, social and environmental sustainability, and appropriate structural change in the agriculture, forestry, fisheries, bio-energy and food production sectors. Total expenditure under this programme in 2010 is estimated at €807 million. This includes more than €230 million from within subhead H for investment in capital infrastructure at farm level, through the farm waste management scheme, the farm improvement scheme, and a range of other investment schemes to assist the horticulture and the organics sectors. A sum of €200 million is being provided in 2010 for outstanding payments due to farmers under the farm waste management scheme. Due to savings made in 2009, the Department was able to pay almost €49 million to farmers which was otherwise due in 2010. The scheme represents the biggest ever investment in farm infrastructures in Ireland. It has been hugely successful and will provide very significant benefits to the environment and in competitiveness for the whole agriculture sector in Ireland.

This programme also includes almost €375 million to meet liabilities under the REPS and early retirement and installation aid schemes under the rural development programme for the period 2007-13. These elements of the programme represent a huge and continuing financial commitment to the rural economy. The 2010 allocation for REPS is €330 million. This is €11 million lower than the 2009 spend as I was able, with the agreement of the House to a Supplementary Estimate, to bring forward expenditure to 2009 utilising savings that became available last year. While REPS 4 is closed to new applicants, those already in the scheme will continue in their contracts and this means that there will be farmers in REPS 4 up to the end of 2014. By then, the total paid to farmers since the scheme was launched in 1994 will have reached around €3 billion.

The new agri-environment options scheme was launched on 30 March and the closing date for applications this year was 17 May. The new scheme consists of a menu of actions that can contribute to the key challenges of biodiversity, water quality and combating climate change. Over 8,000 applications have been received for this new scheme, reflecting farmers' genuine interest and support for protecting the environment. My Department is processing the applications with a view to approving entry into the scheme and commencing payments as quickly as possible.

The budget for the early retirement scheme and the installation aid schemes stands at €44.5 million under subhead G. Again, due to financial constraints, the schemes remain closed to new applicants in the 2009 budget and the 2010 Vote provision is to cover existing liabilities. A budget of €119 million is also provided under this programme and within subhead I for a comprehensive range of forestry measures, and a further €2.8 million is provided for bio-energy measures. I am committed to continuing support for afforestation in order to encourage further planting to protect jobs and the future of the industry and the environment.

A budget of €3 million is provided for assistance for the development of organic farming. The programme for Government includes an objective of having 5% of farmland under organic production by 2012. The area under organic production is currently 1.2% and at the end of 2009, there were 1,548 organic operators in Ireland, with 49,165 hectares of land under organic production methods. The latest estimates are that the Irish organic retail market is currently worth €100 million. We are heavily dependent on imports and there are real opportunities for Irish farmers especially in the horticulture and tillage sectors

The programme includes a range of measures to develop a sustainable, consumer oriented fishing sector, including €5 million to support capital investment in the aquaculture sector and €1.5 million to support projects in the fish processing sector. The allocation for fisheries harbours is €10.7 million for 2010. Of this, €5.02 million has been allocated to the Castletownbere harbour development on which work is expected to be largely completed in 2010, with some expenditure being undertaken in 2011. The project will provide much needed additional quay length, safer access and greater depths for navigation into the harbour and greater berthing depths. The new development will cater for the modern larger vessels that are now part of the Castletownbere fishing fleet and will enable larger visiting vessels to use the harbour.

The provision of additional pontoons at Ros an Mhíl is another major project receiving funding in 2010. A major benefit of this project will be the separation of fishing and ferry activities, which will address many health and safety issues associated with the current operation. It will also free up the existing ferry berths, part of which can be utilised as a cargo berth for servicing the Aran Islands, and will provide a sheltered dredged area suitable for the development of a small boat harbour for the inshore fleet. Other projects being undertaken in 2010 include ongoing repairs to the east pier at Dunmore East. Furthermore, the 2010 budget provides for disability access, safety and maintenance works at the six main fishery harbours.

The 2010 grant in aid figure for BIM is €18.5 million. This is a considerable reduction on the 2009 figure and is due to the conclusion of the Fisheries decommissioning scheme in 2009. I have provided more than €11.3 million under subhead O for the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority.

Programme No. 4 involves expenditure in 2010 of €1.612 billion, and includes major schemes such the disadvantaged areas scheme, for which €220 million is provided in subhead E of the Vote, and the single payment scheme, which is financed off-Vote through the European agricultural guarantee fund and on which the estimated spend in 2010 is €1.245 billion. The programme also includes €31.7 million to deal with outstanding liabilities from the pig meat recall scheme.

My key objective is the provision of a quality customer service in the operation these schemes. Over €1.251 billion in single farm payments were issued to over 123,000 farmers by 31 December 2009, and payments worth €220 million were issued to more than 100,000 beneficiaries of the disadvantaged areas scheme, which meant that over 99% of the farmers charter and action plan targets for these two major schemes were met in 2009.

There were a number of other customer service developments in 2009, including the expansion of the range of on-line services available to customers. The promotion of the on-line application facility for the single payment scheme brought the numbers applying on-line from almost 20,000 in 2008 to over 34,000 in 2009 and 43,500 this year.

Programme No. 5 relates to the development of internal systems of corporate governance, the implementation of public service modernisation proposals and the management the decentralisation programme in a manner that ensures continuity of service and minimises operational risk. Costs in these areas relate entirely to the administrative budget and are apportioned over the four annual output statement programmes. The administrative budget is €257 million in 2010, which is a substantial reduction compared to the initial budget for 2009 of €301 million. This is due to decreases in pay, allowances and overtime rates as well as reduced staff numbers.

I am acutely conscious of the need for efficiency and value for money in service delivery. The Department is engaged in an ongoing review of operations to improve efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of a wide range of schemes and services and the objective remains the provision of the best service possible at lowest cost.

The agri-food sector remains one of our most important indigenous sectors accounting for 8.5% of employment. Agri-food exports exceed €7 billion annually and continue to perform strongly, despite the challenging market environment. In terms of foreign earnings, the wider bio-sector is estimated to account for approximately one-third of the net flow of funds from primary and manufacturing industries. In addition, the high proportion of expenditure on local raw material and services, as well as the dispersed nature and composition of the sector, will ensure that the agri-food sector will play an integral part in the recovery of our economic success.

While the immediate prospects for the sector remain uncertain, there are grounds for some cautious optimism for the recovery in market demand and farm incomes. The first quarter of 2010 has shown some tentative improvements both internationally and domestically, particularly for milk and, to a lesser extent, for beef. Dairy commodity prices have been increasing steadily on EU and world markets and there is a positive outlook in the short-term. In Ireland there has been an earlier than anticipated strengthening of dairy markets. Producer milk prices have risen considerably and there is some expectation of further increases. Factors adversely affecting beef prices include reduced demand and a greater emphasis on cheaper cuts, resulting from the continuing global economic downturn and the strong euro to sterling exchange rate. Nonetheless, tightening slaughter supplies and currency adjustments may help reduce the downward pressure on prices as the year progresses, provided import volumes do not increase strongly.

The provision of almost €1.8 billion in the Vote for my Department represents a substantial ongoing level of support and is clear evidence that the Government remains firmly committed to the continued development of the sector.

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive submission. Do the spokespersons wish to comment on each subhead individually or would they prefer a more general discussion?

I would like to go through the subheads individually.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I thank the Minister and his officials for their comprehensive presentation. On subhead A1, salaries, wages and allowances, there is a reduction in the 2010 Estimate of approximately €30 million. In the context of the reduction in staff numbers, does that figure take account of the pension costs that accrue for the Department or is that under a different subhead?

The Department of Finance pays the pensions of the staff of our Department; that cost is not part of our allocation.

Can the Minister provide a figure on the reduction in staff numbers?

In 2004 we had 4,800 staff in the Department and by 31 March this year that number had reduced to 3,777. The Deputy should also bear in mind that the fisheries division was reallocated to my Department from the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, comprising some 160 staff. It is clear, therefore, that we have had a considerable reduction in staff numbers over several years. Moreover, that number will reduce further, to approximately 3,000, by the end of this year.

I have a question relating to subhead A6. Will the Chairman advise whether we should proceed subhead by subhead or may I comment on different subheads at this point?

The Deputy may ask his question.

Subhead A6 provides for the purchase of furniture and fittings and for expenditure on maintenance and energy costs for all departmental offices. I understand an office rationalisation process is under way within the Department. Will the Minister provide some information on that and the efficiencies accruing from it?

With regard to energy costs, we are all aware of the recent announcement by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Ryan, of the new tariff for biomass energy production. There is a need for that sector to obtain business from blue chip customers in order to kick-start the industry. Is there any proposal by the Department to use biomass as an energy source in some or all of its extensive property portfolio in order to give the industry the confidence it needs? Although the industry may seek more, the tariff represents a reasonable effort to incentivise the sector. There is an opportunity in respect of the Department's extensive network of offices to lend its support in a practical way to the sector by using biomass as an energy source.

On a specific local issue, is there any finalisation of the office rationalisation programme in the Cork area? There is an issue regarding the offices in Mallow and Cork city in that a proposal was mooted that they be rationalised into a single office in Fermoy. As I understand it, staff are not entirely pleased with that proposal. Will the Minister comment on that?

We have put together an ambitious programme of office rationalisation which was approved by Government last July. The savings arising from that rationalisation will amount to €30 million on an annual basis. A substantial part of the programme is already under way. The first office to close was Tallaght and there has been reorganisation in the north east, in County Louth and in the Chairman's home county of Meath. We have also had rationalisation in the south east, in Kilkenny and Waterford, as well as in the mid-west. The Office of Public Works provides accommodation for the Department; we do not source it ourselves.

The Deputy makes a valid point in regard to biomass. Where possible, the State should be involved in promoting that sector. It requires institutional engagement to justify investment and make it feasible for providers to supply the energy. It is not like the system in many continental countries where a supply of energy can be provided to a particular facility in small villages and towns. I agree entirely that we should ensure, where possible, that we use green energy and utilise the natural resources grown by our own farmers in order to assist that industry.

To clarify, there will not be a Department office in Cork city.

That is fine, nobody is arguing for that.

I have spoken to Deputies Ned O'Keeffe, Sherlock and Creed in regard to the situation in north Cork. There will be an office provision there but it has not yet been finalised. We have the office in Clonakilty and we will have offices in north Cork as well. From the point of view of the OPW sourcing accommodation, I cannot say what the specific location will be.

I am sure I will be on a different wavelength to Deputy Sherlock on this. There is an office in Mallow and an office in Cork city. In my view, it is the preferred choice of the majority of staff — I will have to be blunt on this point — not to move to Fermoy. I would also argue strongly — and this is something that is often lost in the debate — that it will not be the ideal solution for service users either. Any new location will cover an area from Youghal bridge to the country boundaries with Kerry to the west. If we are rationalising the offices in Mallow and Cork city, somewhere on the north side of the ring road in Cork city would be the ideal location for a new office, being accessible to the range both east and west that it will serve. To ask farmers in the western extremity of my constituency, in Ballingeary, in Ballyvourney, in western Duhallow, to go to Fermoy for a service is illogical and irrational. There is a logical solution to this and I ask the Minister to be conscious of that. I am acutely aware that I may be on a different wavelength entirely to Deputy Sherlock on this matter. I hope the Minister takes this issue on board seriously before signing any contracts for the rental of offices in Fermoy.

It is amazing how a consideration of a combined budget from the European Union and from our own resources of €3 billion can come down to a debate about Mallow. I was initially of the view that there would be no difficulties in moving the office from Mallow to Fermoy, there being only a few miles in the distance. However, there are issues in regard to whether or not it will cause difficulties for farmers who use the service in terms of how far they will have to travel if the office moves to Fermoy. There is no question that it is a source of concern. I hail from the town of Mallow so one might argue that I am bound to say that. I was initially in favour of the Fermoy proposal but I ask that the Minister consider the difficulties it will pose for service users. There is no doubt that it will present difficulties for some.

The reality is that there are fewer and fewer farmers travelling to the offices because many of them are now using technology, if not e-mail and other on-line facilities then they are using the telephone more prevalently. Consequently, the issue of travel is not as pressing as would have been the case some time ago. As for the implementation of the programme, the Department has an internal implementation programme that is driven by senior officials and the latter have been working with departmental staff in several areas. I acknowledge that some of our staff have been discommoded in moving location. In many instances, one can contrast a city such as Cork, in which other public service employment exists and ready redeployment is possible, with smaller country towns in which offices are closing.

As for the overall programme, the process will involve the redeployment of approximately 250 administrative staff, as well as the overall reduction of 400 full-time equivalent staff. This is a major rationalisation programme and it will be effective. One cannot retain the architecture that was in place when people lacked cars, telephones, e-mail or other on-line technology. We have taken the decision to implement a progressive rationalisation programme and naturally, senior departmental officials are working with local officials to devise the best possible programme to ensure the needs of the Department's clients and customers are met in the first instance. The goal is to provide the best possible service to our customers and that will be effected. In respect of the timing of implementation, the Department has adopted a region by region approach. While I do not know offhand when the Cork reorganisation is due to take place, I believe it will be 2011 at least before we move on it.

Through the Chair, the Minister is describing a scenario whereby the capacity within Cork city will be reduced.

While the Department will be moving out of Cork city, it will build capacity wherever it moves to and its overall capacity will not be reduced.

No, capacity actually will improve. The Department intends to enhance its regional offices.

I believe everyone present would agree with so doing.

A lot of office space in Mallow already has been built and is in turnkey condition. It also would facilitate that process.

This is not the first time I have heard Deputy Sherlock advocating the benefits of considering Mallow. The same is true for Deputy Creed.

While I will be less prescriptive, I urge the Minister to make haste slowly in this regard. I support the principle of the need to rationalise in Cork.

On the specific issue of biomass, can the Minister give a commitment that at some location within its extensive range of offices, the Department will pioneer a biomass plant? This is not a lot to ask. Many people are entering this industry who need to know the State is serious in this regard. I seek a commitment that the Department will install a biomass heating plant in one of its extensive range of offices.

The Department definitely will discuss this issue with the Office of Public Works, OPW, which provides the services, locations and all facilities for it. It will definitely put that suggestion to the OPW, given that the Department is promoting this industry with incentives While this suggestion definitely will be conveyed, as the Deputy can imagine the Department will not be the deciding agency. The OPW will decide this but the Department will outline the suggestion's merits, as well as the message it would give to the industry.

Subhead B provides for research and training and I refer to Teagasc. Reading the Minister's overall statement, one gets the sense there is a focus on Bord Bia and I note the Department's provision for an investment in graduate training there. While I acknowledge this is provided for in a later subhead, I am trying to discern the overall picture. Were I sitting in the Minister's seat, the question would be what would I do. One thing I would strive towards would be to ensure that the research and training budget, particularly that of Teagasc, would be maintained. I would fight any proposals, such as those contained in the McCarthy report, to consolidate the overall national science budget, whereby proposals would be drawn from a single pool. I believe that Teagasc has major potential to bring up by a peg or two the 8% of employment in this sector because of the work it does and because of the potential that lies within its organisation. Food-based research is where Ireland will deliver in respect of export markets. While I acknowledge there has been an increase in the allocation of resources in this regard, I would argue that broadly speaking, it should be fought for tooth and nail at Cabinet level to ensure that Teagasc is not compromised in any way. I understand that an examination of the scientific community in its entirety could lead one to conclude there is an argument that duplication of effort may be taking place. However, Teagasc's capacity should not be undermined in any way. It has the capability to deliver added value to this economy. I make these remarks as a broad statement.

On that point, I support Deputy Sherlock's assessment fully. The essential nature and value of research, particularly that conducted under the auspices of Teagasc, will be invaluable for the sector in the future and it would be a retrograde step to reduce it in any way.

I take the point and Teagasc undoubtedly does an excellent job. I refer, for example, to the Moorepark research centre in Deputy Sherlock's native county of Cork, as well as to its other research centres nationwide. Members will note that an increase in funding of 20% has been provided for this year for Teagasc training. Moreover, it is the same for human resources and research and development. However, I note that Teagasc has been very good at sourcing funding under the different stimulus measures within the Department. It also has sourced funding under the European Union's seventh framework programme, FP7. Moreover, a few weeks ago at the State Laboratory, Backweston, I launched an outline of the Department's work on the different research measures it has funded in recent years. It is an impressive list of research activity in which our universities, institutes and Teagasc have been involved. No matter where one goes in the United States or in Europe, when speaking to the research community or the food community people always will refer to Teagasc and the excellence of the research work it undertakes.

The Deputy is correct to state that we must invest increasingly in research. Last week, I had the opportunity to launch the strategic alliance between UCC and Teagasc. While it is formalising arrangements that have been in place over the years, it brings a greater focus to their work. Moreover, that particular alliance does not exclude other institutes or universities from participation in it. UCC in particular has a long, detailed and good record in respect of food, dairy science and so on. It is very important to have all our public systems working together to ensure the best possible return for the taxpayers' substantial investment that has occurred in recent years and which continues. I have met Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, the Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science, a number of times since she took up her portfolio and she is anxious that the relevant Irish institutes and research centres will ensure they derive the maximum benefit from the substantial research programme she will make available in the coming years. Teagasc has been particularly successful in this regard and one of its last projects, which was focused on the beef sector, drew down funding from a European Union programme. Further benefits must be derived from this source.

On the same point, everyone is going through rationalisation at present and Teagasc is no different. It has proposed to reduce the number of its service centres from 92 to 50. Unfortunately, its office at Mullinavat in my home place is one such site that is earmarked for closure in 2012. I recently brought its chief executive officer down there to meet the people, local farmers, as well as local groups and representatives. I agree with Deputy Sherlock that the future of farming, of exports and of everything lies in research. It will be important to have a strong Teagasc to do this and to lead the way for farmers.

Agricultural colleges have closed at a time when, due to the downturn, students are waiting to attend them. I am proud to say there is an agricultural college in Kildalton in County Kilkenny, but it has a waiting list. Many people are interested in agriculture again because of the downturn, but they are not able to enter the colleges because there are no spaces left. Are we doing the right thing by amalgamating and closing colleges? While I accept the rationalisation and people must live within their means, I am disappointed by the proposed reduction in the number of Teagasc centres from 92 to 50. I do not know whether it would be good in the long term.

I ask members to be brief because we must leave the room.

I am referring to this heading.

We must leave by 11.15 a.m. I understand there could be a vote in the meantime.

I welcome the subject of the Minister's visit to UCC last week. Those in academia are notorious for empire building. UCD, UCC and Trinity do it. Some 12 or 18 months ago, there was a big hullabaloo in academia because Trinity stole a march and allied itself with UCD. This is the type of synergy we need, so I welcome the Teagasc link-up, but is there scope for more? The Minister has under his aegis the Marine Institute, which is also involved in research. In these times, how can we insist that research is not being done for research's sake, but that it has a commercial potential and can be made available? This is the critical issue.

Deputy Creed's point is valid. When I was a Minister of State in the Department in 2004 and 2005, I chaired a group when stimulus funding for those programmes was becoming available. We invited representatives of the industry's major and small to medium-sized enterprises to attend meetings. The clear message I got from the industry was that it wanted to participate in decision making on the type of research to be undertaken. We did not want industry ignorant of what research was doing, each sitting in splendid isolation. After I left the Department, the Tánaiste, who was the then Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ensured there was a working group in which industry participated strongly.

Research should not be done for its own sake. There must be commercialisation and a return to the taxpayer. Deputy Creed was right to refer to the Marine Institute, which Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn discussed last March. It does excellent work.

In some of the programmes funded by my Department, there must be two promoters, one of which would be a university, institute of technology, Teagasc or whatever. There must be a partnership approach if we are to ensure a single institute does not conduct all of the research. The information must also be put into the public domain. This was done in respect of forestry through COFORD.

As the political situation in Northern Ireland and Ulster settled down over the years, a number of different programmes were put in place to assist communities to regenerate and rebuild, but there was a great deal of duplication, as Deputy Scanlon knows from the constituency of Sligo-Leitrim. Unnecessary duplication and a poor return on investment drove me mad. I take the point that the institutes must have linkages and work together.

A presentation that might be of benefit to the committee was given at a North-South agriculture ministerial meeting. My Department's head of research and the head of research in the Northern Ireland Department made a presentation to Ministers and senior officials on the collaboration between North and South and between our institutes. Various bodies, such as institutes of technology, universities and Teagasc, are undertaking a considerable amount of research on a collaborative basis with their comparable Northern bodies. I was taken by something stated by Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn in an interview with an Irish newspaper some weeks ago. She was taken by the fact that the research community had been making a good job of ensuring that no one knew what it was working on. It was an indictment of that situation. There is an onus on all of us to ensure that the public is aware of the research, that it is being put to good use and that it is not research for its own sake. There must be a return in terms of its commercialisation, added value, generation of new products, etc. If the committee is interested in receiving a presentation on the research that is under way in the agri-food and fishery sectors on the island of Ireland, it might be a useful way for members to be updated on those activities.

I visited Kildalton college with Deputy Aylward some months ago. It has excellent facilities. In recent years, Teagasc colleges have received considerable investment and been give state-of-the-art facilities. This is a welcome development.

In recognition of Teagasc's positive contribution to the Government's strategy on research and development, it has been given permission to retain more than €30 million from the proceeds from the sale of its lands at Athenry to fund the development of centres of excellence specifically geared towards advancing research in the agriculture and food sectors, to upgrade Teagasc's head office in Oakpark, County Carlow, and to provide student facilities at Kildalton and the College of Amenity Horticulture in the Botanic Gardens, Glasnevin. The work that is planned, ongoing or completed on the centres of excellence is important.

Teagasc has outlined a rationalisation programme for its offices. This is an operational day-to-day matter for its board. Over the years, individual members of Teagasc have been concerned about and opposed to rationalisation, but when I met some of its advisers and employees in the meantime, I was told that the rationalisation programme was the right way to go. One needs a critical mass of people to be involved in different schemes, not one or two Teagasc advisers in an office on their own. I know this well, since one of the first offices Teagasc decided to close while I was a Minister of State was at Bailieborough in Cavan. The rationalisation is about providing the best possible level of service to the farming community, but not every service is delivered from an office.

The advisory service to which Deputy Edward O'Keeffe constantly refers is an important part of Teagasc's work programme, as are discussion groups. There is also significant interest in the new dairy efficiency programme that the Department has just put in place. It is a matter of ensuring a good dissemination of information to the wider farming community.

Does the Minister accept that students——

We must move on.

——cannot get places in agricultural colleges because there is no room for them?

At this time last year, there was pressure on places at Ballyhaise agricultural college in my county. As far as I recall, and I am open to correction, all students were accommodated when September came.

What I am hearing is different. Perhaps the Minister is right.

At this time last year, I would have been hearing the same about the college in my county.

We will move on. Do members agree to group some of the subheads?

Will we group C to F, inclusive?

I wish to raise two issues regarding subhead C. The matter of the cattle movement monitoring system, CMMS, and meat factories' access to the details on that system raises its head repeatedly. There is a close working relationship between departmental officials and meat factories, but will the Minister reassure the committee that all appropriate regulations on access to the CMMS database are being complied with?

My second question was also asked last year. What progress has been made on the issue of temporary veterinary inspectors, TVIs, in meat plants?

To my knowledge, access to the CMMS is governed by certain protocols. I have no reason but to believe the system works well. Departmental officials are on every meat factory site. I will double check for the Deputy, but I have no reason to assume the system is not being used properly and within the protocols.

Regarding temporary veterinary inspectors, the Deputy spoke about departmental officers being able to carry out some of the work. Is that the query?

This issue has continued for a long time. The Minister commissioned reports into this matter and considerable savings are identified in the McCarthy report. No one is suggesting we should compromise our food safety or that the system should not be led by veterinary people but the requirement for veterinary people at every juncture was identified in the Minister's report and the McCarthy report. What progress can the Minister report in 12 months?

We hear about this the whole time from IFA members. We all agree there must be veterinary inspections for the quality of the food. We hear crazy figures about the costs involved when vets must be present for so many hours. Is there a cheaper way of having inspections done?

By their nature, temporary veterinary inspectors are brought in when certain work must be undertaken. Otherwise, one would need a permanent presence. I reduced the remuneration for temporary veterinary inspectors recently.

What was this reduced from and to what amount?

I do not know off the top of my head but it is substantial.

If the Minister reduced it, he knows the figure.

It was 8% a year ago and 6.5% or 7% this year.

Can the Minister break that down into an hourly rate?

I do not recall off the top of my head but it is substantial. The Department already uses auxiliary inspectors in poultry plants. A number of issues remain to be addressed before work currently undertaken by temporary veterinary inspectors can be reassigned to auxiliary staff. We need supplementary training for the technical staff.

They completed courses at FETAC level 5 or 6 several years ago. They were trained up but the Minister parked them because he would not take on this issue. Perhaps it was not the current Minister but his predecessor.

Auxiliaries are working in poultry plants and I intend to make further progress in the coming months to ensure we have the optimum deployment of the national veterinary public health inspectorate. We are ensuring the arrangements we make over the coming months will meet the necessary EU controls and recommendations at all meat plants. Certain standards must be ensured.

Food safety training is a requirement on an ongoing basis. All staff involved in this area of work have ongoing training. This week I signed a statutory instrument on the reduction of veterinary fees. We have made some progress on bringing in our officers. It has been done in poultry plants and we intend to move this forward in regard to other plants.

Is the Minister referring to administrative officers?

Administrative officers who have reached a certain grade and have been trained up to certain standards in FETAC and HETAC.

Is it the intention of the Minister to introduce auxiliaries to take over some of the work?

Will this be at a cheaper rate and at lower cost?

If we can ensure more of our personnel are doing more of the work, we will do so. It may involve reassignment, an issue that was raised in the value for money review. We are doing this on a pilot basis and we want to ensure our standards and people are fully equipped to meet the demands placed on us by European Union regulations. There is ongoing training in food safety by all personnel who work in the area. Industrial relations issues must also be resolved.

Can the Minister provide a report on progress over the past two years on that specific issue?

I will provide a letter to both spokespersons.

Are there any comments on sections D, E and F?

The land parcel identification system is causing trouble. I appreciate the EU dimension and the audit requirements. Is it true that an amnesty was offered this year if people correct their maps on single farm payment applications?

In respect of this year's single payment scheme, people were given the opportunity to correct plans where unintentional errors occurred in the past. I do not use the term amnesty.

If the correction was made, will the Department decide the applicant made incorrect claims for the past eight or nine years and penalise the applicant?

No. In instances where difficulties occurred, departmental personnel worked with farmers where there was a lack of clarity in respect of applications. Issues were identified and clarified for individuals. In some instances building may have taken place since the initial maps were submitted. Since submitting the original plans, people might have done structural work on their farms.

There are a lot of new buildings on farms.

I know all about it. Some 90% of them have been paid for.

Has the date for rectifying the plans passed?

It was 31 May. We issued statements twice to encourage people who needed to make changes to finalise them by 31 May.

I welcome this because I was involved in it through my son. I had a small number of matters to change.

Deputy Aylward can repay the Minister.

We had the opportunity to rectify it this year and I thank the Minister for providing it. It was a great idea. It can be called an amnesty or whatever one likes but everyone had the chance to rectify small details like buildings. I did so for my farm.

Many farmers put their trust in agricultural advisers. Many were not privy to the detail of this. Farmers find they are paying a penalty for the good endeavours of their farm advisers, who were acting in their best interest for many years but now find this is a major issue. I ask the Department to be conscious of the entitlements that might be lost because the land is not matching the maps. I have a case where a man is down €7,500 over a number of years. I will not bore the committee members with details but this is a genuine case and this man made endeavours to remedy the situation over several years.

In advising people to notify the Department of any changes, we issued a statement pointing out that while people might engage a planner, it is the applicant's responsibility to ensure the data sent to the Department is correct. I accept Deputy Creed's point that people put their trust in planners. The applicant signs the form and while many of us are careless about reading the finer detail, when European auditors examine our books there is no point in us telling them that applicants put their trust in their planners. We do not want to penalise everyone. We want to draw down the maximum amount. There is an auditing process on how we implement schemes. Officials in the single payment scheme division have dealt with this and did excellent work with officials in the European Union to try to minimise the reductions and the penalties imposed on individual farmers. Every Dáil Member presented individual cases of genuine errors. All our statements refer to individuals examining their data as well as relying on planners to do so.

I take the Minister's point that the individual is responsible. However, people put their full trust in those approved by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to do the work on their behalf. Many people are not doing their job properly and a number have been badly affected as a result of planners not doing what they should have been doing. I have heard of such cases and I am sure the Minister is aware of some of them. It is unfortunate and I take the Minister's point that the Department and Brussels feels it is the responsibility of the applicant, but many of those applicants cannot even read the form, never mind fill it out, to be quite honest and blunt about it.

In fairness, this year they got an opportunity to re-examine everything, regulate it and put it right.

We have to move on as we have to leave the room at 11.15 a.m.

A great effort was made by the Department to try to get all of these issues regularised. Naturally, none of us want to see anybody penalised. However, we are also under strict inspection as there is a penalty on the country if a percentage of applications is deficient. We must ensure that we do the best to protect the overall parcel of money that comes to us from the European Union. At the same time, I accept Deputy Scanlon's point that many people are not familiar with form-filling and there may be unintentional errors in applications submitted on their behalf to the Department.

Are there any other comments on subheads E and F?

With regard to the agri-environment option scheme, if I may respectfully say so, the Minister put a little spin on it when he stated that he was pleased to report to the committee that more than 8,000 applications have been received for this new scheme. It is well under-subscribed. If it is seen as a partial replacement for REPS then — and I state this without any political charge — it has not worked. I wonder whether the Minister needs to go back to the drawing board on this. The Minister should consider whether it is so vastly under-subscribed and a tranche of money is left sitting there for want of a better or modified scheme. It would be the right thing to do in my humble opinion.

Initially I thought it was a very good scheme but the feedback I get is that it is really designed only for people who want to tip away at a little hobby farming here and there. The person dependent on farming to put bread on the table has no interest whatsoever in getting involved in this scheme because given the amount of inputs and efforts that must be made, the return is negligible. There is an issue of scale in some aspects where the amount of effort is not worth the time for what one gets in return. Will the Minister consider returning to it and modifying it in some way? It speaks volumes that only 8,000 applications were made.

Many people were wary of this scheme. It was intended that there would be 10,000 applicants who were exiting REPS and €50 million was set aside. However, only 8,000 applications were made so 2,000 more people who it was envisaged would join did not do so. I receive the same feedback from farmers, that they were not able to fulfil the criteria and tick the five boxes to draw down the maximum amount of €5,000. Is the scheme working out as it was envisaged? Why did so few farmers take it up and why are people so wary of it? It is a replacement for REPS as we knew it but it does not seem to be working as well as the REPS scheme did.

Installation aid and early farm retirement scheme were removed two years ago when the downturn began.

We are not that far yet.

May I ask, with regard to the agri-environment option scheme, how much money will we leave behind us in Europe that was earmarked under the scheme but that we will not draw down? If it was geared to 10,000 applicants, with wild optimism that those 10,000 would draw down the maximum of €5,000, this will not happen and funds will be left behind.

Will there be a replacement scheme for 2011 to cater for those coming out of REPS 2 and 3? There are more than 100 applicants for REPS 4 who were the earliest into the scheme but who, because of a computer glitch, are still awaiting payment. That is entirely unacceptable. Will the Minister write 120 manual cheques this evening for those files that have been approved and are ready for payment? Some of the people applied more than two years ago and it is not acceptable.

With regard to the last point, it is not possible for us to write manual cheques.

That is ridiculous.

That is the——

If there was an emergency it would be done.

It is paid by electronic transfer and there is a European requirement that there be some European funding in this rural environment programme. Every effort is be made to have those queries finalised as soon as possible.

Does the Minister accept they were first in and last out?

I do not know whether they were the very first in but they were received in the early stages, I know that. We will not leave one cent behind us in Europe in regard to our draw down under the new agri-environment scheme. With regard to the 8,000 applicants, I was told by various organisations that the new agri-environment scheme would not have 3,000 participants. What I stated all along was that we wanted to make provision for the 10,000 farmers who would exit REPS 3. We were always conscious that with the higher level of participation and the huge increase in new applicants a year ago that there were possibly less people to join a new scheme. Taking the background of the huge growth in participation from 46,000 to 63,000 less than a year ago and the number of new applicants going from the previous high of 12,000 prior to 17 May 2009 to 17,000 plus another 1,500 between the middle of May and early July, we believed the number of people wishing to participate in an agri-environment scheme was reducing. The total of 8,000 farmers participating in the new scheme is a very good result. Various comments were made on the scheme, and the Irish Farmers’ Journal analysed how a number of farmers would fare out under the existing REPS 4 and under the agri-environment scheme. It found that quite a percentage of them would fare out better under the new scheme than they would under REPS 4. It will be successful.

On a point of order, that is one analysis, but what is the analysis of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? I take the point the Minister has made on the fact that 8,000 have subscribed. What does he envisage will be the average payment for each of those 8,000 farmers? Does he think it will be the maximum amount? Will it be a fraction of that?

We have not begun an analysis of the applications because they were received on 17 May 2009, along with another 120,000 single payment scheme applications. We are only starting the process. There were internal meetings in the Department——

With all due respect, and I apologise for cutting across the Minister, then the Irish Farmers’ Journal analysis is a theoretical analysis. Until we see the figures from the Minister and Department we do not know how successful this will be.

We did our own analysis in the Department and at public meetings departmental officials gave examples of the payments that farmer Sherlock with X number of acres would receive for participating in various measures and schemes. It was not theoretical from that point of view. It was important that the Irish Farmers’ Journal and our own officials conducted these exercises. Yesterday the Department held an internal meeting and the processing of applications has commenced. We do not know how they will turn out, however, because we have not sampled the applications.

Does installation aid come under a different subhead?

We will move on to subheads G and H.

The installation and early retirement schemes were cancelled two years ago due to the downturn. The Minister has stated that he will reinstate them when funding allows him to do so. The installation scheme is particularly important for attracting young farmers. Does he think progress will be made on it this year? It created an incentive for older farmers to hand over their operations. He did something on the farm retirement scheme but can he do more?

To support Deputy Aylward's comments, if we are trying to encourage a younger generation into farming, greater flexibility in respect of late applications to the early retirement scheme would be beneficial. It would create incentives for people to become involved.

I am all in favour of incentives for land mobility among younger farmers but the value-for-money report on the installation aid scheme found that for every €15,000 paid to young farmers, €5,000 was spent on administration. We need an alternative to this scheme. I ask the Minister to consider the less expensive option of offering tax credits to young farmers over a period of years. This would be easier to administer and we must think about value for money. The early retirement scheme is excellent but I am not sure a reversion to the old installation aid scheme is the right idea. We need to consider something that is faster and involves less red tape.

I have encountered a lot of anger over the closure of these schemes. People feel there are inside and outside tracks with regard to late applications. Lost applications have been resurrected in the Minister's office. People are not happy about these allegations. I ask that the committee be provided with a detailed analysis of both schemes in respect of the number of late applications that have been approved and the location of lost applications, whether in local offices or Ministers' offices. I do not lay charges against anybody but I am aware of people who have benefited from the system.

Deputies Sherlock, Bobby Aylward and Creed spoke about the early retirement scheme, which was closed in October 2008. We reopened the scheme for people who had advanced their applications by September or October 2009. Of the 175 applicants, 12 did not qualify. Difficulties subsequently arose for 39 applicants in regard to enlarging their holdings because this came under the installation aid scheme. Some 33 of these have been able to meet the requirements and their applications are being processed. Approximately 50 applications have been approved to date. There was no inside track. If people could demonstrate they had set their applications in motion, had only posted them on budget day or were awaiting data from a State agency, they were considered.

As Deputy Bobby Aylward noted, I have stated that I will move on to the installation aid scheme as soon as the early retirement scheme has been dealt with. I see some merit in the installation aid scheme but it could give a better return and the rate of payment could be reduced.

Will the Minister be considering it this year?

I will return to it in the latter half of the year.

Did the Minister consider reopening the early retirement scheme?

No. We agreed to consider those who were in the process of applying when the scheme was closed to new applicants. As the Estimates indicate, we continue to pay out large sums of money under this scheme.

Does the Minister envisage reopening the scheme?

We have no plans to do so at present.

People were in the midst of transferring land titles and agricultural payments. I welcome that those who had genuinely applied to the scheme are being facilitated.

I am very pleased with the Minister's reply on the early retirement scheme. He intends to cater for 175 applicants.

Twelve did not qualify and six have not yet provided us with further information.

I am pleased that he has done his best to address the matter in difficult circumstances. Perhaps when additional money is made available he can reopen the scheme. At present, however, we must be thankful to him for helping the people who were caught in limbo.

We will move on to subheads H and I.

I presume the meat investment fund comes under the capital investment scheme for marketing and processing of agricultural products.

Yes, it is the beef and sheepmeat fund.

I understand the fund amounted to €52 million. How much of that figure has been drawn down to date?

How much has been ring-fenced for small abattoirs as opposed to major meat processing plants?

To my recollection, all the facilities were major. Previously the Department had a small abattoir scheme. Rationalisation resulted in the closure of various facilities and the upgrading of other facilities. In regard to the number of applications, my recollection is that there were no applications from the smaller scale processors. Prior to that, I was not in the Department at the time, there was a scheme for assistance towards the upgrading and provision of small-scale abattoirs. I do not know how much was drawn down.

May I ask a further question on the meat investment fund? For some illogical reason that I do not understand, at a time when there are 340,000 unemployed, we continue to issue work permits in large numbers for non-EU citizens to work in meat plants. I appreciate the issuing of work permits is not the Minister's area of responsibility.

However, a proposal was submitted by people who were interested in establishing a training facility for meat boners to work in these meat plants which, for some reason, did not get approval — perhaps the Minister would follow this matter up. A consequence of this is that meat plants are still able to bring large numbers of non-EU citizens or renew existing work permits for the majority of their employees at a time when huge numbers of Irish people are signing on who would willingly train to work in meat plants. That is not acceptable. That issue, quite apart from the grants offered to these meat plants, gives us substantial leverage across a whole range of complaints that farmers have in regard to the running of meat plants; the payments they receive from them; and the issue of live exports and the slaughtering of Irish animals, albeit not in substantial numbers. With regard to this last point, it is a safety mechanism in terms of price setting in the UK-owned plants of these Irish meat companies. There are a number of issues there that need to be addressed and on which I would like to hear the Minister's views.

On subhead H, I congratulate the Minister on the farm waste management and farm improvement schemes given that 90% of the money has been paid to farmers. In the present recessionary times that is a fantastic achievement. The fact that the payments were brought forward last year when they were badly needed, after the bad weather, is a great achievement by the Department and the Minister.

On subhead I — forestry and bio-energy, what is the amount of grant aid being paid out this year for afforestation? There is a rumour the grant will be increased to make it more attractive for landowners to plant more forestry. Is there any truth in that? Will the grant aid be increased and will the present grant be maintained? Given that two years ago grant payments for afforestation were cut by 8%, can they be redeemed?

I concur with what has been said about the farm waste management scheme and the farm improvement scheme. In regard to slaughtering facilities, in Sligo where there were 18 slaughter houses there is now one such house where animals can be slaughtered. The individual in question does not have the capacity to kill enough animals for his own use. Will the Minister examine this issue and put in place support for at least one abattoir in the county which could cater for the needs of the county? If a farmer wants to have a lamb slaughtered for the freezer he must go to Roscommon, Mayo or Galway.

I advise members that we must vacate this room by 11.15 a.m. Also there is a vote in the House and I have a number of things to read out. I call Deputy O'Keeffe and ask him to be brief.

I welcome the Minister. I am sorry that I have to go to the Committee of Public Accounts. Is the farm improvement scheme still in operation and, if so, at what level are grants paid? In regard to farm waste management I note there is a substantial reduction on the outturn for 2010. What alternative grants are in place?

May I take those questions quickly? Under the farm improvement scheme we will have paid out €59 million by the end of the year.

It is an ongoing scheme?

It is an ongoing scheme but the closing date was October 2007. I will be announcing in the next week or ten days, two new schemes in regard to poultry and pig welfare housing accommodation. Subsequently, I will announce a new dairy hygiene scheme.

To respond to Deputy Aylward, there will be no increase in the level of remuneration for forestry. The premia are the best in the EU. Increased funding is available for the forestry programme this year. With regard to Deputy Creed's question——

Deputy Creed has another question, following which we must wrap up.

How is the Minister going to fund the horse and greyhound racing industry?

The Department of Tourism, Culture and Sport transferred to us the money it had not spent for the rest of this year. The Taoiseach outlined, and I am sure the Deputy has read it——

Is the Minister preparing the legislation to tackle the offshore on-line betting?

We want to make progress on that issue. The Deputy would have received a briefing, as would his party Leader, from Horse Racing Ireland on the issues we need to address.

Are subheads I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S agreed? Agreed.

I thank the Minister and his officials for attending today's meeting of the select committee and assisting our consideration of the Revised Estimates and the output statement.

Top
Share