SELECT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND THE MARINE debate -
Thursday, 3 Dec 1998

Vol. 1 No. 6

Estimates for Public Services 1998.

Vote 31 - Agriculture and Food (Supplementary Estimate).

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Deputy Walsh)

I move:

That a Supplementary Estimate of the amount required in the year ending 31 December 1998 for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Agriculture and Food, including certain services administered by that office, and of the Irish Land Commission and for payment of certain grants, subsidies and sundry grants-in-aid and for the payment of certain grants under cash limited schemes.

I am pleased to present for approval a Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Agriculture and Food of £35,744,000. That sum is very welcome this year because it has been a difficult year for agriculture and farming. Prices collapsed following the Russian political and financial crisis. In addition, there was also very bad weather. This has been one of the most difficult years for farming for a very long time. I am pleased the Department of Finance has approved a supplementary budget which will allow us do a number of things to ameliorate some of the difficulties farmers are experiencing.

Subhead G8 relates to the winter fodder scheme to which £16 million has been allocated, £10 million directly from the Exchequer and £6 million under the culled young scheme. This sum will not be enough but it acknowledges the fodder problem. We used the current network and structures to quickly pay out money to farmers so that they could purchase additional fodder. The scheme is based on a survey carried out by Teagasc. I was asked to use that survey to make payments to farmers. We all know that the voucher system used in earlier fodder schemes did not work because the vouchers were not given directly to farmers, they ended up elsewhere. It is important that under the fodder scheme the available money is paid directly to farmers as quickly as possible. I hope the money will be paid out before Christmas.

Subhead C2 relates to disease eradication. This is an extremely expensive business and the extra resources are required to meet additional expenditure arising from TB and brucellosis reactor payments and additional costs related to testing and supplies. Unfortunately, there have been higher incidents of TB and brucellosis this year compared with 1997 and previous years. The estimated total needs for this subhead are £50 million this year compared with an out-turn of £38.798 million in 1997. In relation to TB, it was expected there would be 40,000 reactors this year compared to 28,000 in 1997 and 30,000 in 1996. Obviously that is an increase. This disease seems cyclical in many ways. It is disappointing that we still have high levels of both TB and brucellosis.

The apparent increases are being discussed with representatives of the Animal Health Forum which comprises a range of farming bodies and organisations. I will meet them on 10 December. There have also been significant increases in bovine TB in Northern Ireland and many parts of Britain. It is a difficult and very costly area. As Members know, brucellosis is highly contagious. We have a range of informative seminars and structures for co-operatives and creameries to ask people to be careful in husbandry and animal health management matters.

The next subhead relates to aid to farmers in disadvantaged areas. To date this year, approximately £100 million has been paid under the 1998 headage scheme. The corresponding figure for this time last year was £88.9 million. The headage was initially to be 65 per cent funded by Europe. However, due to front loading of the scheme and money getting scarce this year and next year a substantial amount of money will come from the taxpayer. It will come directly from the Exchequer. Under the tranche of headage schemes for 1994-9, a total of £726 million will be paid to farmers. Approximately half comes from the Exchequer, £365 million from Brussels and £360 from the Exchequer. That is an expensive scheme on the taxpayer. As Members know, 100 per cent of premia comes from Brussels but it is fifty-fifty for headage. It is not easy to keep that going.

Subhead N.7 deals with Leader and INTERREG. Under the Leader programme, approximately £88 million has been allocated to 37 Leader groups around the country. To date £70 million, or 80 per cent, of available funding has been spent or committed by approved Leader groups. Expenditure under the programme was slow in 1995 and 1996, but as groups became established and set up their own administrative structures, expenditure began to increase last year and again in 1998. As a result, expenditure will be £3 million greater than expected at the end of this year. By and large Leader groups are doing an effective job in different parts of the country depending on the personnel on the Leader board and how well they are linked with local communities. I am pleased we are keeping Leader funded.

Subhead B.3 relates to Teagasc. An additional £1.25 million is being provided for Teagasc. In recent years, Teagasc has not always succeeded in balancing its budget due to circumstances beyond its control. Consequently, a deficit has accumulated which amounted to £3.3 million at the end of 1997. Teagasc expects to balance its budget in 1998. It is an essential R&D and advisory body. It is important that the core debt of Teagasc is reduced and wiped out if possible.

Subhead H.3 deals with the Irish Horseracing Authority. Grant aid to that authority has increased to £42 million over five years in line with the development programme drawn up by the board under the chairmanship of Denis Brosnan. There was a difficulty regarding pensions for employees. It is proposed in this Supplementary Estimate to increase the allocation to the IHA by £1.25 million to assist it to regularise the pension scheme so that in future workers will have their pension entitlements paid in full under the pension fund.

Subhead A.1 to A.9 relates to the administrative budget. There is an increase in this due to BSE and tracability, office refurbishment and other reasons. They are the main issues. The officials and I would be very pleased to elaborate on each one.

As I stated at the outset, 1998 has been a difficult year for farming. Many of the difficulties arose from the loss of markets which was outside our direct control. Nevertheless, I have pursued every possible avenue, both at EU and domestic level, to help alleviate the present problems. In recent months, I have won a series of concessions for Ireland at EU level, principally in the area of market supports for the Irish livestock industry. I have also given top priority to the prompt payment of the direct income supports for farmers.

The committee will also be aware that there is a gross provision of £800 million - I think it is £817 million - to agriculture in the 1999 Estimates which were published a couple of weeks ago. This is a significant net increase of 19 per cent which will underpin the sector during a difficult period and assist in its future development. The control of farmyard pollution, dairy hygiene and the on-farm installation aid schemes which are important investment measures are being re-opened. There is also a significant increase in the REPS allocation. These measures are specifically designed to encourage new investment in improving infrastructure, to sustain the environment and to enhance the ability of the sector to face the competitive challenges of the future. I look forward to presenting that Estimate to the committee in due course.

The proposals in this Supplementary Estimate for 1998 serve to further underline the Government's commitment to addressing the difficulties faced by the agri-food sector and to contribute to its long-term development. I therefore commend it to the committee.

Chairman

Deputies Connaughton, Penrose, Brady and Sheehan will make contributions. We are all aware of the time constraint to finish by 10.50 a.m.

Deputy Connaughton

We should be able to meet that deadline. If I did not know as much as I do - if I say so myself - about the agricultural community, I would be taken in by the Minister's statement. The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, genuinely meant what he said a fortnight ago when he stated farmers were not entitled to the demands they were making and they were hyping it up. He came through a winner yesterday. Despite all the hype and publicity from the Department of Agriculture and Food or the Department of Finance, when farmers sit back this weekend and count what they got and look at the implications of this budget, they will realise the Celtic tiger did not come their way.

Chairman

We are dealing with the Supplementary Estimate, not the budget.

Deputy Connaughton

I have every intention of confining myself to it, but the overall context is extremely important. Of course I welcome the £35 million, but if one goes through the subheads, it is significant to note where the overruns are and are not in the Department. I mean no disÍrespect because I assume any employee is entitled to be there and should be there. It is significant that under subhead A.1, there is an increase of over £3 million in salaries, wages and allowances. There is nothing wrong with that, it is normal and I have seen it many times over the years. The allocation for travel and subsistence is up marginally. At the same time, there is a saving of £10 million on the projected payments in 1998 on REPS. In other words, the Department of Agriculture and Food believed in 1998 that there was likely to be a bigger uptake on REPS and made another £10 million available. The same happened with the retirement scheme. A total of £4 million was saved because the out-turn was lower than assessed.

I cannot understand how the An Bord Bia subhead is marginally under-spent. Will the Minister explain to me and to farmers how An Bord Bia, the marketing agent for this country, did not have an over-spend of a couple of millions pounds this year when farmers have their backs to the wall?

There is a large under-spend on the national beef assurance scheme. I assume there has not been as much progress as was expected in the Department in this area at the end of 1997. How has a scheme linked to the marketing scheme been under-spent also? It is easy to see how the figure of £35 million was arrived at.

There is nothing under the subhead relating to the area aid scheme. Do the expenses incurred under subhead A.1 relate to overtime in the area aid office? I do not understand what is going on in Hume House. I have been 20 years in politics and have seen many bureaucratic mix-ups occur. This is no reflection on the staff who are being asked to do the impossible. It was always going to be a daunting task for any Government or Department to digitise every acre of land. We only had one long valuation before this many years ago and this time things are totally different. I do not know who in the Department is responsible for strategic planning. During Priority Questions a few weeks ago I said it was my belief that there were between 12,000 and 15,000 area aid files outstanding. These files either involve farmers who were not contacted or farmers who did not receive an answer from the Department. There must be between 10,000 and 12,000 files still outstanding. This means that 10,000 or 12,000 farmers cannot be paid under the various schemes. I have no idea whether these are claims are under estimated or over estimated. That number of farmers will not get cheques in the post before Christmas. The Minister mentioned a figure of 6,000. I would dispute that figure because I believe it is much higher. It was a very bad decision to close down the office for a number of weeks. That led to frustration all round. However, that is nothing compared to the frustration which has occurred since the office reopened. I tried to ring the area aid office seven times yesterday. I went through the inquiry office in the Department which was most helpful. Very often the inquiry office cannot get through to the area aid office. The DVO offices throughout the country cannot get through to that office either. No matter how long this system is in place, there will be a substantial core of problems regarding mapping which will not be solved by a letter or telephone call. Someone in Agriculture House should realise that an officer at livestock office level with access to technology should be designated so that someone in Hume House can contact the farmers via the local offices to get the mapping right.

On behalf of thousands of farmers who will not receive payments before Christmas, I ask the Minister to try to release cheques to them and base the assessment on what these people were paid last year. What is taking place at the moment will not work. One cannot blame farmers for being extremely angry. I tried to get through to the office yesterday on behalf of more than 30 people and failed. Some people have been trying to get answers for a month. That is no service. If the service is that bad for TDs, what must it be like for farmers who are trying to get their money. This structural matter was not mentioned in the budget. This will cause a very big problem unless someone gets to grips with the matter immediately.

Regarding the fodder scheme, I would call this lucky bag money. I accept that an attempt was made in 1985 to introduce fodder vouchers. This was not successful. There was an attempt made in 1986 to top up headage payments and it was outstandingly successful. By and large, those who were entitled to the payments received them without the furore that is taking place at the moment. The Minister stated on radio last night that £20 million has been made available under this subhead. He cannot count the £2.5 million available for top-up on sheep payments as an extra as that was paid last year.

The culled ewe scheme is an environmental issue, the effects of which will be felt for years. Some £10 million was allotted to cope with the fodder crisis. West Galway and Connemara has been included in the scheme but other parts of the county have not. Some of the worst land in Ireland is in east Galway. Several parishes are much worse affected than the parishes that have been included in the scheme. A line was drawn on the map. An area on one side of the line will get £300 for cattle and an area on the other side of the line with the same weather conditions, land, and disastrous cattle prices will get nothing. That is a very inequitable system. There must be a case for allowing individual farmers to apply for compensation under this scheme. I toured County Limerick last Saturday. I met a group of people in Abbeyfeale where there is some of the worst land in the country. These people are excluded from the scheme. It is all over County Roscommon and County Clare. There will be a winter of discontent unless the Minister takes this in hand. I was disappointed that the subhead was not dramatically increased yesterday because that is what brings immediate relief. It does not solve the structural problems which we are experiencing in agriculture. It will take much more time and effort to do that. However, at least it would help farmers who are caught by catch 22. They know they have not enough fodder. If they sell their animals, they get almost nothing for them. Last Monday I saw a strong, almost top class, weanling of 370 kg with one punch sold at a mart for £220. There was a gasp of astonishment around the ring. It was one of many such sales. There were bids of £105 for little heifers of 250 kg. People had to sell them at a reduced price because they knew that in the spring they would be unable to feed their cattle. Round bales of silage in my area are fetching as much as £23, up from £6 or £7 last year. It is time that reality was recognised. The only way in which the Minister can direct money quickly to that sort of farmer is through the fodder scheme. The number of farmers who would receive it is very small.

I make that case because an opportunity was lost yesterday. The Minister should have doubled the amount. Even then, there would be problems. The IFA is putting a ceiling of £1,000, not £300, on it. Irrespective of the amount of the ceiling, if it applied to a greater number of farmers at least it would give some signal that this Government was interested. I call it hype. If that is what the Minister for Finance meant, those are the people who will suffer grievously.

I understand from the Minister's figures that the number of tuberculosis reactors has increased to 30,000. What is the underlying trend? Obviously he has figures at his disposal to show the number of herds as opposed to the number of reactors.

He might also give us some indication of how brucellosis testing is progressing. I appreciate that we have lost official brucellosis free status and that it is important to regain it as soon as possible. There is one sector of farmers who try to buy heifers at the marts and who traditionally put groups of such cattle together for clients. They are finding it extraordinarily difficult to manage under the new system. I do not know whether something can be done in the near future to allow those people to operate. On the one hand I accept that we must have strict laws concern the movement of cattle but we must have a system to facilitate people who want to buy heifers. Many farmers get agents to do this. There are almost no agents buying heifers at the ringside because they cannot operate. They must bring them back to their own place to be tested again and of course that is not practicable.

The Minister might refer to the new criteria which are supposed to apply next year to the EU retirement pension scheme. Many farmers are frustrated and confused about the proposed changes. Recently somebody placed an advertisement in a newspaper which stated that one would not qualify if one did not apply before the end of the year. Will the Minister indicate the changes which have occurred? For instance, if a farmer was to apply for this on 1 January next, even without the change in the additionality clause, what different criteria, if any, would apply compared to now?

I note that there was no reference to pig farmers either in this document or in the budget. They do not receive headage. There is nothing in the Supplementary Estimate which would help them in any way. I need not tell the Minister that the industry has almost collapsed. They would have closed their doors long ago were it not for cross-subsidisation with other farming lines, as many pig farmers are also dairy farmers or beef cattle farmers. Last week a group of County Kerry pig farmers told me it was understood that the lowest point in the depressed pig trade would come now and that it would then level out and hopefully regain itself somewhat in the spring. They told me that the bottom point has not been reached yet and that it is likely to be reached next April or May. If that is the case, I cannot understand why something was not done for pig farmers. Even the Minister's efforts to try to reduce the veterinary fee seems to have come to nought.

While we would like to see an extra £35 million being made available, all is not well with the various sectors. It is against that background that people will view the Supplementary Estimate and the budget. Many farmers will be extremely unhappy about what has happened.

Deputy Penrose

I welcome the Supplementary Estimate. Obviously it is needed; otherwise the Minister would not be here.

I preface my remarks by saying that we cannot lay the blame for everything at the door of the Department, the Minister or the Government. Much of it is outside our control. That is why when I contributed to the budget debate it was not with feigned indignation like that of some of the Minister's colleagues; I was genuinely concerned for a sector on behalf of whom I have been annoying the Minister and his officials to perhaps too great an extent.

I referred to the installation aid scheme where in my view there will be a problem. I hope I am proved wrong because there are 700 farmers in a state of limbo. I expect Teagasc to notify those people and indicate clearly whether or not they will remain in the system.

The new scheme will be tightly focused and targeted. I worry whether it will get off the ground if there is not enough money. That is why I made a genuine attempt in support of the Minister's efforts to remind the Minister for Finance to allocate more money for installation aid. I was concerned that the Minister for Finance might be dominated by people who might be thinking differently to those in rural Ireland making efforts to retain young people on the land. That was the basis of my strong words about that scheme.

The Minister spoke of the £1 billion in direct income support, which is a great deal of money. Most problems lie with its focus, targeting, allocation and distribution. It is something which must be dealt with as we face the challenge of protecting rural Ireland from the Agenda 2000 proposals. We hope to make a constructive contribution to that and I look forward to working with the Minister in the national interest to secure that.

The need for an increase in the sum required for TB and brucellosis eradication is of concern. It is a bottomless pit for money. An additional £14.5 million has been granted to this area. I asked the Minister yesterday for an additional £5 million to bring all farmers into the farm installation aid scheme. It would allow 1,100 young farmers to enter the industry each year which would stem the outflow from farming. The increase in funding required for TB and brucellosis eradication is worrying. How many herds are affected? The Minister said there was an increase of 28,000 to 30,000. That is worrying and he must tackle that. I presume that is why a significant proportion of the Supplementary Estimate is taken up with this subhead.

Regarding the area aid unit, I received a note yesterday from a person complaining of spending 15 minutes ringing the unit only to be asked to leave a message on voicemail which was so overloaded it could not take the message. However, when one gets through to the staff in the unit, they do their utmost to help. Most problems relate to mapping. I am used to looking at maps but I saw the maps sent out by the Department and could not make head nor tail of them. There will always be a few difficult problems and, in such cases, mappers should be located in various regions to assist people concerned. It is the only way to solve the problem. When the whole process is digitalised, the Minister will probably be rid of such problems and it might be the way to go in terms of future allocation of resources. It will be an additional option. However, the problem will not be truly solved until officials are located in specific regions. I would hate to be a civil servant in the Department who must listen to people like me roaring and shouting on the telephone about someone not receiving their grant payments. However, it should be remembered that it is done because of cases such as a woman I know who needs the few thousand pounds owed to her to help with the children at Christmas. Relaying that to an official in the Department who tries to deal with it is not the way to do business and I hope some improvement will be made in this regard.

I know the Minister is trying to have the conditions for the farm retirement scheme relaxed, such as the 50 per cent rule and the additionality clause, and I hope he is successful. However, there is uncertainty about what will happen after 1999. People are now rushing because of this and farmers are trying to get lessees or other people to take up the option. I know the European Commission has not given any indication and has left the Minister in limbo again but it is important the situation be clarified.

Regarding the fodder scheme, it is available in some areas but not in north Westmeath, although the land is not as good there. The payment is £300 which some might say is not very much, but it buys a few tonnes of fodder and fills a hole at a critical time. Perhaps the Minister could examine that.

On the Estimate in general, any effort to alleviate the crisis in which dry stock farmers find themselves is welcome and I support it. However, greater efforts should be made from now on, especially for that sector.

Deputy J. Brady

I compliment the Minister on the work he has done in past months, which was a difficult period and one in which it was difficult to be Minister for Agriculture and Food. He and his Ministers of State pulled out all the stops to get whatever aid was available for farmers and the agriculture industry. I also compliment him on obtaining export refunds and intervention for which he fought very hard. However, it was tragic, having done that, to return to find the meat factories held onto the benefits and never passed them on to farmers. That said, had he not obtained them, what would farmers be receiving now? They receive 74p to 75p a pound which means they would probably have been receiving 64p to 65p a pound had the Minister not obtained the schemes. It is not his fault the meat factories will not return the benefits to producers.

I do not wish to be critical of the Minister or his Department and its agencies but, while people are availing of the fodder scheme, some people who should be entitled to it will not receive it. There are many such people in my area of north Meath and they contact me week after week on this subject. They are small farmers, some of them bachelors, with 30 acres who have little or no fodder. Unfortunately, nothing can be done for them. Could some individual hardship cases possibly apply, even at this late stage? Teagasc conducted the survey of farms affected by fodder shortages. Did it recommend the areas to be included in the fodder scheme or did the Department decide? There are severe hardship cases in areas which were not included, and perhaps they could be examined if Teagasc still submits areas for inclusion because they are experiencing fodder shortages.

The eradication of TB concerns me. Brucellosis was eradicated and it has returned. However, the situation with TB annoys me because, despite the amount of money spent on its eradication over the past 40 years, we are still in the same position today as at the beginning. It is only when someone has personal experience of losing stock through TB or brucellosis that the trauma experienced by farmers in such situations is appreciated. Is there any hope of a new form of testing being introduced, such as blood sampling along similar lines to that for brucellosis? Could that be introduced as part of the TB eradication programme?

I welcome all the measures in the budget for farming. I was disappointed that Deputy Connaughton's party voted against £11 million in VAT refunds for farmers.

Deputy Sheehan

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. It is a pleasure to be here with my constituency colleague, the Minister, Deputy Walsh. We do not always see eye to eye but we have been in the House together for 20 years and we still have not come to blows.

Deputy Walsh

You will be waiting for another 20 years.

Deputy Sheehan

While I welcome today's Estimates and the Minister's statement, I know he has come through a very turbulent time in the past 18 months in his ministry. It is not any more turbulent, however, than it was for his predecessor. While I value what he has done, it is too little, too late. It is not enough to save the agricultural industry.

I listened to the Minister promise that farm installation grants would be reintroduced in September at the presentation of certificates in our constituency of Cork South-West. It is now Christmas and the grants still have not been reintroduced. Let us hope that he has got the green light to reintroduce them early in the new year.

I see the Minister has allocated £10 million for the winter fodder scheme. I am amazed that there are certain DEDs left out of the scheme for some reason. Is the Minister aware that the DED on the north side of Mount Gabriel, the coldest side of the mountain, has been completely left out, while the DED on the southern side which is in constant sunshine has been included? The rainfall on the DED on the north side on the mountain is at least 200 per cent higher than on the south side. What genius in the Minister's Department came to the conclusion that this DED should be excluded? That is only one area. I could point out 14 in the constituency.

The Boilin Valley has been completely removed from the scheme. Everyone knows that the highest mountains in south-west Cork are in the Boilin Valley, the Beara Peninsula and Hungry Hill. Glengarrif has been completely left out of the winter fodder scheme. I know the Minister is familiar with Glengarrif because he has a summer house there and he goes there occasionally.

Deputy Connaughton

He does not go often enough.

Deputy Sheehan

I always like to see him come to my end of the constituency. I would like to see him as the harbinger of good news for the area rather than having to point out this irregularity in the scheme. Is it possible to reconsider the areas which were left out even though they qualify for the scheme? Is there any way to appeal this decision? I know that if the Minister had been aware that such a situation existed, he would not have let it continue. I hope he will reconsider and grant them an opportunity to prove their entitlement to the fodder scheme.

A figure of £16 million was provided for the winter fodder scheme and ewe supplement scheme. Of this, £6 million came from an island Vote from the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands. That is Minister de Valera's Department. I would be interested to find out when sheep became works of art.

Chairman

That can only be raised when the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands deals with its Estimates.

Deputy Sheehan

I am amazed to think that sheep are objects of art. What implications does it have for the poor island people who are in dire straits and needed that £6 million from Minister de Valera to upgrade their living conditions? Before this scheme was introduced, a farmer from Glengarrif took 14 culled ewes to Macroom mart and put them on the market. He was bid 50 pence a piece for them. That is the situation in the sheep industry. Beautiful mountain ewes are selling for £3 a piece at Kenmare fair. I have seen it. The Minister can come with me and I will show him, but he should be prepared for a hostile reception, even though it is in the heart of his own constituency. There is deep concern among farmers along the western seaboard who are depending on sheep production and beef cattle to make a living.

I go to Bandon mart once a month. The Minister does not go very often but I have seen him there at election time. I have seen animals of 370 kilograms selling for £400. Farmers are ready to commit hara kiri due to the depressed prices of sheep and cattle. Grave unrest exists within the farming community. I do not care what the farming leaders said on television last night, I saw no reason to uncork the champagne bottles and drink to the success of the Government, Deputy Charlie McCreevy and his budget. The farmers were dumbfounded.

I know that agriculture, the backbone of this State's economy, is in dire straits. I see the £6 million from the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands. I have underlined the new west, the new El Dorado of Ireland which has been found by Deputy Jackie Healy-Rae and adopted by your Government. Does that include the three peninsulas in our constituency? The Minister gets his fair share of votes in the three peninsulas.

Chairman

Please try to stay with the Estimate.

Deputy Sheehan

I want the Minister to make it clear what the west includes. When the Minister talks about the west, is he including the 12 western counties originally earmarked for assistance? This extends from Mizen Head in Cork to Malin Head in Donegal. Unfortunately, for some unknown reason we cannot get Objective One status for the Minister's constituency. Is this because we are too affluent? I cannot see any affluence. The Minister seems to be confining himself to the Inchidoney basin where he had a large party the other evening with the Taoiseach. The Minister should not confine his vision to the eastern part of his constituency. He should remember the unfortunate farmers in the west of the constituency who I represent and who are in dire straits.

Chairman

We are discussing an Estimate and not preparing for the next general election.

Deputy Sheehan

There is a saving of £4 million on the early retirement scheme. Is account taken of the extra acreage these applicants must obtain when passing on farms to sons or daughters? Is the extra acreage accountable for this reduction? If that is the case, will it be possible to eradicate the extra acreage clause from the scheme? It is a hindrance to the scheme and the Minister should examine this issue.

I welcome the aid to farmers, particularly to small farmers, announced in the budget. However, this is only a repetition of the smallholders assistance which has been in existence for the past 20 years. I hope that when implementing this scheme for small farmers, the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs will not take into consideration the potential sale value of yearling cattle. I have seen farmers cut off from smallholders assistance because the social welfare officer claimed they had potential earnings from the sale of yearling cattle worth £700 each. At current prices they would not be worth £700 each if the farmer kept them for four years.

Chairman

That is a matter for the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs and not for this committee.

Deputy Sheehan

I know, Chairman, but we should have an input also. The Minister sits in Cabinet with the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs and he could ask him to direct his officials not to proceed along those lines. It is no good saying to a shopkeeper compiling end of year accounts for the Revenue Commissioners that his stock represents potential sales which might not materialise for another ten years. The same is the case with farmers. The potential sales might not materialise. The animals could die or become diseased. The price of an animal would hardly cover the cost of calling out a vet. The Minister should insist that the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs drops the potential sales clause. I am tired of seeing farmers in tears over this issue at my clinics. The Minister must also be aware of this from meeting farmers at his clinics. One or two farmers have admitted that they went to the Minister but came to me afterwards in desperation. The Minister and I share responsibilities and difficulties in the constituency.

Deputy Walsh

Absolutely, it is a joint approach. Deputy Sheehan had a clinic in west Cork a few days ago and I thought it was my clinic because there were such good crossover.

Deputy Sheehan

The pig industry was forgotten in the budget and by the Department for the past five years. It is going downhill day by day. The Department was asked to do away with the £1.01 slaughter fee. There are not many pig producers in my part of the constituency anymore, they are in the Minister's part. The £1.01 is the only profit for these farmers, but the Department is taking it from them by way of this levy. A little money would go a long way in a section of the community which is very vulnerable.

It is no good suggesting that the handout from the smallholders assistance scheme will solve the problem. It will create problems because the qualification criteria for smallholders will be revised under the new scheme operated by the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. I am concerned that many of those who have been in receipt of small farmers dole payments for the past ten years will be disqualified under the new scheme. Only a small number will qualify under the new scheme. The Minister may be able to reassure me that my fears are unfounded.

Chairman

I call on the Minister to reply. We have only 15 or 20 minutes left.

Deputy Walsh

I thank Members for their contributions to this debate. I will refer to a number of issues highlighted by almost all contributors. One of the irritants of the past number of years has been area aid. The situation in Hume House is that there are about 132,000 area aid files - 132,000 out of the 150,000 farmers in the country. Of these, 124,000 are clear. This means that 8,000 remain. These 8,000 farmers will be paid unless there is some intractable problem. They have been written to and a number of the files are in local offices for clearance and follow up. I give a commitment that they will be cleared up unless there is some intractable problem.

There are problems every year with headage, premia and area aid payments. For the past few years, when the matter came to a head around September or October, a submission was made to Brussels to dispense with the rules and make payments in the case of the most difficult cases. The problem with this approach was that these difficult cases had to be tidied up and regularised at some stage. Last winter, spring and early summer was spent tidying up these cases. There is almost no overhang of difficulties remaining, except in a small percentage of cases. In cases such as arable aid, payments are made when the button is pressed and that is as it should be. We are close to that. I remember when I entered office we had some difficulty with the grain harvest. This year, thankfully, it was possible to harvest virtually all the grain. I said I would try to be helpful by getting the arable aid out straight away. We had to get a dispensation from Brussels to do that and it was effective. I am as conscious of this problem as anyone else. I do not want to go over the figures again as people hate hearing them all the time. However, in order to put the record straight we have to say how much has been paid. Out of 132,000 applications, 124,000 have been cleared for payment and paid. There are 8,000 difficult cases.

Deputy Connaughton

Will the Minister give a guarantee, in so far as any Minister can, that those 8,000 people will be paid, if they are so entitled, before Christmas?

Deputy Walsh

I give a guarantee that all eligible cases will be paid before Christmas. An extra £8 million has been allocated to ensure we have adequate finance to pay everyone, especially this year. Headage goes to people in severely disadvantaged areas and they are more entitled to it than anyone else. Deputy Connaughton mentioned access to the area aid system at local offices. There is an increase in the administrative budget for more networking between area aid and local offices and improved computerisation and software in order to ensure that a precise level of support is given to farmers in local offices. This will be done in 1999 and should be of further assistance. A farmer can go into the local office and clear up his or her case without contacting Hume House. There will be electronic transfer of data between the local offices and Hume House and connectivity between IT systems.

Deputy Sheehan

That is a step in the right direction.

Deputy Walsh

It will be a godsend.

Deputy Connaughton

For everyone.

Deputy Walsh

The 1999 situation should also be significantly improved by the fact there will be very little carryover of the problem from the past few years. We have kept going by getting approval from Brussels to make certain payments and tidy them up afterwards, which is never satisfactory. Accounts are examined by the auditor in Europe, Mr. Barry Desmond, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Committee of Public Accounts, before which the Secretary General and officials are brought. Large sums of money are involved - the overall figure is £1.024 billion this year. Even if there was a problem with a small percentage of that, we would be in deep trouble.

Deputy Connaughton

I appreciate everything that is being done. However, 8,000 farmers is a huge number who are not paid. They basically have nothing. Is it possible to have an earlier application date next year so the applications can be vetted when submitted? If the technology is as good as the Minister says, most of those applications will have to be tracked so that when a problem arises it will not be when the cheque is issued. Farmers cannot understand why their files are in Hume House for four or five months. They believe they are put in a heap in the corner and are never looked at, but that may not be right. Whether it is right or wrong, communication was not made quickly enough with farmers to give them the chance of putting their files right if they were wrong.

Deputy Walsh

When these forms came out first they were exceptionally complex - one would want to be a barrister like Deputy Penrose and an agriculturist to even read them. However, they have been simplified to a great extent. This year a box was provided to tick whether there was any change from last year. We will be aware of those that have not changed and are correct, similar to the previous year.

There is no difficulty with 85 per cent of forms - it is the 15 per cent which cause the problem. The staff concerned are as helpful as possible. Most of them are from the land - if they are not first generation they are close to it. They work overtime, weekends and late at night. It is hard to work seven days and nights a week. In fairness to them, they did a great deal of work when the pressure was on.

A decision had to be taken whether a telephone service would be made available. Staff would either write cheques and clear cases or would be on the telephone. For a few weeks, they were not on the telephone and the service was closed down. I take personal responsibility for that decision. I thought it would be better to get the cheques out and then bring back the telephone service. I know answering machines are not the best option. We will get that cleared up in a number of weeks. When I was first elected 21 years ago, my biggest problem was pensions, dole etc. and they were sorted out.

One advantage is that when one gets one's pension, one is pension age until one goes to the grave, whereas with cattle, it is ten months or 22 months, and there is a change of herd etc. It used to take three or four years to get a telephone at that time. The number of problems is reducing all the time, as is the number of constituents coming into Bandon Mart and elsewhere. As regards headage payments, farmers know there will be a cheque there at the end of the day and that one can be helpful to one's constituents by speeding that up in virtually all cases. On the other hand, when people call to the clinic to see if one can get one's son or daughter into the Civil Service, one may not receive as positive an answer. We can expect progress.

I was asked about the underlying trends of animal disease. Our expert, Mr. Fitzgerald has given me the figures. In regard to TB, the number of herds restricted at present is 8,000, out of 150,000 in the country. The estimate for reactors is up from 28,000 to 42,000. The present figure for animals per thousand is 3.9 compared to 2.7 this time last year. That is worrying. I have called a meeting of the Animal Health Forum for 10 December to discuss how best to tackle this problem. However, 97 per cent of herds are free. This is a huge problem.

Chairman

How many of the new outbreaks have been caused by lack of action in regard to badgers, in particular? That is a major bone of contention in my area in which new outbreaks are occurring at a phenomenal rate. Farmers who have never experienced problems previously and have not even bought in new stock have suffered breakdowns. There appears to be a grave lack of will in the Department to deal with the badger problem; badgers appear to be the biggest carriers of the disease. The fact we now have free movement, having done away with the 60 day test, has been pointed to by most farmers as the main reason reactors are not being identified. This issue must be considered by the animal health forum, otherwise we will find ourselves on a slippery slope. Farmers do not want disease breakdowns.

Deputy Walsh

I ask Mr. Liam Fitzgerald, one of my officials, to comment briefly on that.

Mr. Fitzgerald

The Chairman has identified two areas which will come into focus in the forum, namely the badger and wildlife situation and the pre-movement test. If the pre-movement test is reintroduced, it will place an additional cost on farmers. At the moment, it is possible to trade animals within the 12 month rule once an annual test is carried out. A subgroup of the animal health forum - the animal science group - which comprises experts from the farmer and veterinary organisations will be considering whether the reintroduction of the pre-movement test is justified.

A great deal of investigation is being carried out into the badger problem. There are four new investigative areas in addition to the Offaly projects. These are located in Cork, Monaghan and Kilkenny. We are attempting to ascertain whether the badger is responsible for the spread of the disease. Licences can be obtained in other areas under Dúchas for the removal of badgers if they are identified as the cause of particular breakdowns.

Similar problems are being experienced by DANI and MAFF - the Northern and UK agriculture departments. A deputation is visiting Agriculture House today to discuss these matters. We must share expertise to see whether it is possible to move forward and pin down the rolling 3 per cent of herds involved.

Chairman

Can any blood or DNA tests, other than the current tuberculin ones, be used? It would be worth spending a large sum of money on a once-off basis to eradicate this problem. Members of the public are furious when they see increases in expenditure on TB and brucellosis.

Mr. Fitzgerald

While an annual figure of £40 million or £50 million may seem high, we must remember it is spent to protect an industry worth up to £3 billion. We cannot export any animals unless they are certified TB and brucellosis free. Were it not for our major exports to Europe in the autumn, the situation would be even more grave than it is. Other countries are aware they can source quality animals here.

On the research side, the tuberculosis investigation unit is run in conjunction with University College Dublin. It is considering various blood and DNA tests. Some tests may look promising initially but may turn out to be unsatisfactory. The TB skin test is the recognised one and we must persist with it for the moment.

Chairman

Is the change in the vaccine used in the test one of the reasons for the identification of more reactors?

Mr. Fitzgerald

It may be a factor in the identification of different grades of tuberculin. However, we must consider all aspects of the scheme to elicit possible causes of the upward trend.

Chairman

We decided at a previous meeting that we would invite representatives of the animal disease section to come before the committee in the new year.

Deputy Walsh

There are currently 374 out of 150,000 herds infected with brucellosis. That represents 0.2 per cent of the total herd; in other words 99.8 per cent are brucellosis free. We want to reduce the figure to at least 300 in order to protect our exports of almost £2 billion. The national beef assurance scheme is progressing well. On the farm retirement scheme——

Chairman

As we have run out of time, perhaps the Minister could circulate the relevant information to the Deputies concerned.

Deputy Walsh

Funding is available for the farm retirement scheme; the land additionality clause is a complete handicap to the scheme as is the part-time farmer provision. Those will be considered in the context of Agenda 2000 and the scheme will come into effect when negotiations conclude, which is expected to be some time in March or April. The advertisement of the scheme caused a great deal of confusion.

Chairman

That concludes our consideration of the Supplementary Estimate and I thank the Minister and his officials for their attendance.