I ask the Minister to make his statement on the Revised Estimate. The spokespersons can then make their comments.
Estimates for the Public Services, 2000.
Vote 31-Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (Revised).
I am pleased to present the 2000 Estimate for the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development to the committee. I propose to first set out the economic context against which these Estimates were framed and then comment on measures, which I think are of most interest to the Deputies, before commending the Estimate to the committee.
The economy as a whole has had unprecedented success in recent years. Unemployment rates have fallen dramatically and the level of economic activity has grown tremendously with positive impacts on prosperity and well being. The trend looks set to continue in the current year. Recent OECD commentary is very positive for Ireland. The OECD predicts growth of 10% in terms of gross domestic product in 2001 and 8.7% in terms of gross national product. This will be driven in part by greater employment and fuelled by tax cuts. An optimistic picture is also painted for other OECD member economies with average growth of 4% and predicted average growth of around 3.5% in the euro zone countries.
Having come through a difficult period, farm incomes will recover this year with more favourable prices for most commodities and higher direct payments. Food exports exceeded £5 billion in 1999 with particularly strong growth in value added products. Through a combination of improved market access and the approval of additional shipping facilities, live cattle exports are buoyant. Over 400,000 cattle were exported in 1999 with a further 45% growth so far this year.
Direct payments to farmers are set to increase to approximately £1 billion as the benefits of Agenda 2000 begin to come on stream. In addition, over half of farm household income now comes from off-farm sources and these earnings should continue to grow in line with the strong growth in the national economy. The farm assist scheme introduced in 1999, in recognition of the problems facing low income farm households, has since been improved and enhanced by expanding the eligibility conditions to allow for a more generous assessment of income. Over 7,000 families are participating in the scheme.
When I appeared before the committee last year, I commented on the success of our Agenda 2000 negotiations. Well thought out and executed negotiations transformed a possible loss to farmers of £1.4 billion over the period 2000-6 into a substantial gain of almost £400 million in farmincome. The assurance provided by Agenda 2000 and the financial capacity available to the Government as a result of economic growth were part of the background to the national development plan which covers the period up to 2006.
The plan contains a huge commitment to public investment - £6.7 billion over the seven years. The committee will be aware that substantial funds were secured within the plan for agriculture and rural development as well as for the food industry. The total amount involved is £3.7 billion, with £1.7 billion of this coming from the EU and £2 billion from the Exchequer. This funding represented an increase of almost 50% on the previous plan, mainly due to extra funding for REPS and the early retirement scheme.
The plan was approved by the Commission late last year. Negotiations on the community support framework for Ireland have now been completed and this will shortly be formally agreed between the Commission and Ireland. All the draft operational programmes being provided for in the community support framework have now been submitted to Brussels. The Department's main programme, the CAP rural development plan, was submitted to the Commission at end of 1999 and negotiations are expected to be finalised this month. The other structural measures, such as on farm investment, diversification and area based rural development initiatives, will mainly come under two new regional operational programmes - the Border, midlands and western region and the southern and eastern region which will be managed by new regional assemblies.
The national development plan gives substance to the White Paper on Rural Development which was published in August 1999. Rural development has been a central issue on the political agenda for over a decade and, notwithstanding the major economic and social progress achieved in that time, its importance is no less today. If anything, the opposite is the case. The growing pressures on mainstream farming, arising from developments inside and outside the EU, confirm the need to take a holistic, integrated approach to the development of rural communities. For that reason the publication last year by the Department of the White Paper on Rural Development was particularly significant.
The White Paper sets out a vision and a framework for sustaining our rural communities and marks a new approach and Government commitment to rural development. This is the first time that a comprehensive expression of Government policy on the many elements relevant to the needs of rural communities has been articulated. It identifies issues critical to the development of rural communities in Ireland and recognises the problems of poverty and social exclusion in rural areas.
I will now deal with this year's Estimate for the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. In my comments I will follow the sequence of subheads set out in the Estimate. It provides for record gross expenditure for the Agriculture and Food Vote for 1999 of over £900 million. This represents an increase of 14% in gross expenditure. Taking into account appropriations-in-aid, that is receipts, the proposed net Vote expenditure for 2000 is estimated at £615 million, an increase of 25%. This means that the Exchequer will contribute more money towards scheme expenditure and the EU a little less in relative terms.
The priorities in this Estimate have been to drive the operational programmes under the national development plan to support sustainable farming and the rural sector, to build on the success of the food industry and to protect public and animal health using the latest technology available. The national beef assurance scheme is of particular importance in providing standards of assurance to all, particularly consumers. I will reflect these priorities in my presentation of the Estimate.
Direct payments to farmers constituted over half of farmers' incomes and this proportion is set to increase significantly in the coming years following the successful outcome of the Agenda 2000 negotiations. Improvements in payment delivery in recent years will be built on to ensure that the service provided to farmers is efficient, fair, friendly and transparent.
In January this year the Department completed a new information technology strategy plan covering the next four years. The total investment projected over the period of this plan will be around £45 million. Work on implementation is now under way. This investment will give the Department the most up to date technology and ensure that it is well placed for the electronic age encompassing both e-government and e-commerce. This will enable the Department to fulfil its responsibilities for expenditure of some £2 billion between the Vote and FEOGA measures outside the Vote.
Only the healthy state of Exchequer finances makes such a major initiative possible. It is an opportunity to provide the Department's clients with service based on the latest technological advance and the Department's staff with the tools necessary to achieve continuous improvement in performance. As the strategy was adopted in January, the precise funding requirements are not fully reflected in the administrative subheads. These will be supplemented depending on requirements and progress made.
In 1999, expenditure on disease control measures increased considerably due to the continued high levels of brucellosis and the initial Estimate was topped up with a Supplementary Estimate later in the year. The current high levels of TB and brucellosis are not sustainable for the reasons of potential risk to human and animal health, farming and trading implications and cost. Regarding brucellosis, I am pleased to say that there are number of positive factors emerging to indicate that the incidence of the disease is declining and it is hoped that this trend will continue. There is a broad acceptance that the current regime should be maintained and in recent months it has been enhanced in a number of respects . The existing eradication programme for brucellosis has been endorsed by EU food and veterinary experts who indicated in their report, published last year, that the current regime, including the 30 day pre-movement testing requirement, should be maintained but that further time would be needed to reap the full effects of the current measures. I know the committee had a number of experts here in recent weeks who discussed these measures in detail.
The position in relation to TB is that significantly higher numbers of reactors were disclosed throughout the country in 1998 and 1999 than in the preceding years. Veterinary experts have not yet established the precise reasons for the increased levels of disease, but among the factors being considered are the cyclical nature of the disease, higher stocking densities, poor weather conditions which may have made the animals more susceptible, some fraud and levels of infected wildlife.
In the context of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness it has been agreed to commit specified staff resources in each district veterinary office to carry out investigative work into the causes of herd breakdown. A proactive approach to the sources of all infection will be taken in each DVO area using the additional dedicated departmental and farm relief service personnel. Their efforts will be concentrated in that 20% of the country which yields 50% of current reactors. The distribution of these resources and other aspects of the new disease eradication programme arrangements are currently being discussed with the farming and veterinary organisations in the animal health forum. I will keep the position under review and should it take time to achieve improvement on last year's levels, funding will be found from within the Vote.
As regards BSE, while the situation is stable, it was hoped to see some improvement. We are taking all the health measures recommended at EU level and are monitoring the situation closely.
I am providing £9.62 million under subhead C6 for the national beef assurance scheme. This is double the amount provided last year. The scheme is of vital importance to agriculture, especially to the beef sector and I will go through in detail how it will operate.
The National Beef Assurance Scheme Act, 2000, was signed into law in March 2000. The aim of the scheme is to provide guarantees regarding the safety of Irish beef and beef products in line with consumer demands and to restore consumer confidence in the wake of recent food scares, notably the BSE crisis. The scheme has three main elements, namely, the development of transparent and integrated production and processing protocols, the enforcement of these protocols through a registration and approval process and the provision of an effective animal identification and tracing system. The scheme will apply to all primary producers and processors and will be under the control of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development.
The animal identification and tracing element has already been implemented. The current system for animal identification has been enhanced by the creation of a fully computerised system for the identification of all cattle movements, that is, CMMS. All information on identity and movements is entered on a central database and can be used subsequently to validate the origin and movements of animals presented for slaughter or export. Maximum use is being made of electronic means to capture the data through computer links established at livestock marts, meat factories and export lairages. A paper notification system is being used where electronic transmission would be impractical.
A framework for capturing movement data onto CMMS is in place at all collection points since 1 January 2000. A temporary system was put in place at live export points but the full CMMS system is now being rolled out to these points. The focus now will be on fine-tuning the overall CMMS system, including the enhancement of validation and monitoring procedures.
The animal health computer system is a new computer system which will initially support the implementation of the TB and brucellosis eradication schemes. At the same time, it will provide the basis for expansion in later phases to support the Department's other veterinary and animal health activities. The design of the initial phase is currently being completed and it is intended that development work will commence later this year. The development will facilitate integration with other Department systems, such as the cattle movement monitoring system, and will be carried out in accordance with the recently agreed IT strategy for the Department.
An amount of £5 million in capital expenditure is provided under subhead F2 for capital investment under the Western Investment Fund. This will enable the Western Development Commission to provide funding in the form of long-term loans and equity geared to the enterprise environment in the area. The Competition Directorate of the European Commission approved the operation of the fund in April 2000 and clearance is expected by the end of June from the Agriculture and Fisheries Directorates for separate applications to operate the fund in the sectors of marketing and processing of fisheries products.
I have provided £2 million in subhead J5 for the national scheme of installation aid for young farmers. I regard this scheme as important in encouraging land mobility and promoting early inheritance. Under subhead J6 an allocation of £1 million is made for aid to pig producers in the Border regions. This measure was of particular importance in an area of hardship. Both schemes, although funded entirely by the Exchequer, required EU approval. At times this can appear frustrating as it may take time, but it is part of the framework within which we must operate.
Subheads L1 to L6 cover the schemes operated to implement the EU FEOGA guarantee regulations. An amount of £25.786 million has been provided for market intervention. This subhead covers the technical and financial costs associated with intervention stocks and security labelling of beef for export refund purposes. Stocks of beef have almost disappeared but stocks of butter are on the increase. The usual practice is to take a cautious view as I have done here.
I have made provision of £4 million under subhead L2, mainly to cover a disallowance by the European Commission earlier this year of 1.2% of suckler cow premium expenditure in 1996 and 1997. The Commission took the view that the Department had applied the rules on replacement heifers too liberally. It is a reminder that the Department is accountable not only to the Irish farming and food sector but also to the European Union and Irish taxpayers for both sound controls and prompt, courteous and efficient service.
The increase of over 50% in funding under the national development plan is due mainly to extra national and EU allocations for REPS and the early retirement scheme. Ireland has secured 7.3% of the total EU aid for these CAP accompanying measures, which reflects the fact that we were among the first member states to introduce them and that take up has been increasing consistently each year since they were introduced. They will be grouped for EU budgeting purposes with headage which has moved from the FEOGA guidance fund to the guarantee fund. These three measures will account for more than £400 million or nearly half the Vote. The money has been well spent in the past and we expect the European Commission, as well as active and retired farmers, will take a keen interest in how the schemes are managed over the period 2000-06.
The M subheads provide funds to operate schemes provided for in EU structural regulations. The national scheme for the control of farm pollution and the national scheme of investment aid for the improvement in dairy hygiene standards remain in operation and applications in respect of proposed investments continue to be accepted under these schemes. Some £14 million has been provided in subhead M1 for works carried out under these schemes and for the completion of residual works carried out under measures operated under the Operational Programme for Agriculture, Rural Development and Forestry 1994-99.
A provision of £194 million has been provided for the period of the national development plan for an improved scheme of farm waste management and a scheme for the improvement of dairy hygiene standards. These proposed measures will be open to farmers with a maximum of 15 income units, including off-farm income. These schemes will, therefore, be open to an increased number of farmers, including part-time farmers, and should contribute to securing household viability in many small and medium sized farms. These measures will form part of the new regional operational programme for the Border, midlands and western region and the southern and eastern region. The programmes have been submitted to the European Union for approval with a view to commencement of the measures as soon as possible.
These new schemes, together with REPS and the early retirement scheme and a wide range of measures funded from FEOGA guarantee expenditure of more than £1.2 billion a year, must be managed within the Department's administrative budget. The days are long since gone when additional staff could be made available for each new scheme. That means constant improvements in deploying and managing resources to meet competing priorities and provide the standard of service to which the Department is committed in the Charter of Rights for Farmers. When the other activities of the Department are taken into account, particularly the key negotiations on Agenda 2000 on which technical implementing rules are still being fine-tuned in Brussels, the challenges are extremely demanding.
The Leader programme has made a considerable impact on rural development and on boosting rural communities. The programme gives local people an opportunity to plan the development of their own areas. I am providing more than £20 million this year and I urge groups to complete their planned projects so that the funding committed is taken up within the deadlines set down.
The food industry has performed well in recent years and benefited greatly from the support made available under the food sub-programme for 1994-99. In addition to providing for final payments under the sub-programme, the 2000 Estimates, which include £4.9 million of the £48 million for An Bord Bia under subhead E1, allow for the commencement of expenditure under the food related provisions of the national development plan. These initiatives place an emphasis on added value, market orientation and competitiveness. The indicative public funding allocation of £282 million encompasses capital investment, research and development, marketing and promotion and human resources. The initiatives recognise the industry's importance both in the overall economic context and in terms of its contribution to agriculture and rural development. I am satisfied they provide the proper framework for the industry's continued development.
In comparison to where we were just one year ago when we were still finalising our negotiations on Agenda 2000, we have come a long way. The outcome of the Agenda 2000 negotiations were successful. They have been followed up by a lot of detailed planning for the future which led to the national development plan and the major financial commitments in that plan of which I have spoken.
While major financial commitments at EU and national levels have been secured, putting the various schemes in place has required planning at national level and approval at EU level. I am pleased to report the substantial progress which has been made in this regard and I look forward to approval and implementation of the schemes later this year.
The major investments in the agri-food and rural development sectors which are provided for in the national plan provide a basis for confidence in the future of the sector. However, we all recognise that investment is just one element of a wider policy framework which is necessary to ensure the long-term viability of the sector. The Agri-Food 2010 report, published in March, identifies the issues and challenges facing the sector and proposes possible strategies to meet them. Consultations are currently under way with the social partners on this report. Arising from these consultations, I intend to bring to Government a detailed plan of action on the Agri-Food 2010 report and the remaining Rural Development While Paper issues. It is against this background of providing for the Department's current requirements in 2000 and taking account of the strategic requirements in the medium term future that I commend these Estimates to the committee.
I congratulate the Department on the way this presentation is laid out. It is very readable, as these things should be. On many occasions, one would comment on something under a subhead which would not fully relate to what we were speaking about. We had this format last year and I like it. I do not intend to take very long and I have seven or eight points to which I want to refer. Naturally, the Minister put the best possible shine on the Estimates. I suppose if I was sitting his seat, I would do so myself.
There are a few matters to which the Minister did not refer to my surprise and disappointment. When the Minister and the Department speak about farm incomes, they seem to rush forward with the idea that because there is a such good off-farm income somehow everything is rosy in the garden. However, it is true that no matter what the price a person on an Irish farm gets for produce it is important. Agriculture is going through a terrible time. I do not have record for the committee that the past two years have been nothing short of a disaster and that is why it is impossible to get a young man or woman to go back into farming. I do not know who will be able to change that. I assure the Minister the problem is not confined to a few small farms in the west. Irrespective of what the Minister says on the Estimates and the millions of pounds being spent, people are not enjoying good times in farming. It is only fair that I put that on the record.
I would like to bring a technical matter to the Minister's attention. The national farm management survey is important and has served farmers and policy makers well over the years. A new question is being asked, which has been brought to my attention by people involved in it, about off-farm income, not so much from the point of view of the farmer but of his partner or spouse. We should be very careful about that. If we are talking about farm management surveys, we are talking about the profit and loss account on the farm. It should not make any difference to the figures what a partner is earning outside the farm. That should be looked at again.
Maybe I read the figures incorrectly but the 1999 provisional outturn for the subhead on TB and brucellosis is £64 million and in 2000, the Estimate is £47 million. I would have thought it should be the other way around given that we had 44,000 reactors in 1999. As far as I can see, the Department is coming down very strongly in favour of a 60 day pre-movement TB test and is about to introduce it. Judging by what the Minister's officials told us a week or two ago, this looked like what was going to happen. Will the Minister outline the veterinary reasons for introducing a 60 day pre-movement test? Is this being done in isolation or will the badger reign supreme all the time and will the environmentalists always win the day?
Do we take it that, whatever else happens, little will be done about wildlife, although we have proved down through the years that the badger carries TB, that there will be a huge imposition on farmers as happened some years ago and that we will have a TB and brucellosis tests so that cattle can travel between farms, to marts and so on? Will the Minister give the veterinary reasons behind the decision to introduce a 60 day test? Perhaps he might clarify for the farming community whether that is on the cards.
I refer to compensation for those affected by BSE, the greatest torture which could befall a farming family. This spring I noticed a huge backlash against the compensation being provided. If animals on a dairy farm contract the disease in early spring, the farmer gets the value of the animals - that is not in doubt and the officers seem fair and reasonable - but they are without income for the two or three months after that which is a peak time for spring milk suppliers. There is no room or provision in legislation for any consequential loss. A spring calving herd is at a greater disadvantage than any other type of herd in that the milk cheque is not received for three or four months and the farmer cannot restart before that period.
The Minister, who has a background in dairying, knows well that May, June and July is a bad time to try to get into milk and to replace the cows that went in February or March. There is much anxiety and bitterness among people caught in this trap. They were caught in a further trap this year. After they sold their cows, on valuations they got according to Department guidelines, the market value of cows increased. Heretofore, they were either static or falling. The Minister needs to have a chat with somebody in the Department to tell them that this is not working out.
The Minister said he hoped that by the end of or later this year the farm retirement scheme, the REPS, the installation aid and so on would be introduced. I am told that a number of countries want to use the fast track system and that it is likely that three or four will give sufficient information to the EU Commission on those various schemes that will enable them to get the approval to go ahead in the next two or three weeks. It has been represented to me that for whatever reason, there has been a delay by the Minister's Department in answering some of the queries and that we are likely to find ourselves with no retirement pension scheme, no REP scheme, no control of farmyard pollution scheme - by which I mean the new scheme - and no installation aid scheme until late autumn or early winter. If that is the truth it is a disgrace, especially if it transpires that other countries are able to do their business better than us and they get the go ahead before us.
There is mayhem out there. There are farmers who do not know where they are. They do not know whether they can farm the land. Some have rented it on a six months basis to see what would happen on the 1 July. Some are in a limbo position in that their land is not included for extensification and the person renting the land has not the use of it. The Minister is receiving similar queries from all over the countries. There are people who want to get involved in the REP scheme but they do not know what is happening. I am informed the Department should have answered some queries much more quickly. If that is the case I ask the Minister to get the skids out and to ensure that we are one of the first countries involved because we have most to lose by not being eligible for inclusion in those schemes.
It appears the Minister did not mention the sheep industry. How is the sheep review proceeding? Ably led by the Chairman, the committee visited Paris last week and looked at what is happening in the market there. We were very impressed by the quality of Irish lamb we saw. However, we also saw a total domination by the French system, both at the marketing and retail levels. French comes first and last and French is best. The new labelling, in the colours of the French national flag, indicates that, irrespective of the commitment they signed the EEC accession treaty, they are on a solo run. I do not know what the Minister can do about that. Can we reverse the trend? Luckily for Irish sheep producers French farmers cannot produce enough lambs for their population of approximately 60 million people. They will have to continue importing them and we will have to be the best of all the exporting countries.
On the day we visited Paris the French farmers were getting approximately 34p per lb more for their lamb than we were. The Minister knows this well. Our lamb prices have collapsed again today and we are back down again. We will soon be at £1.10 per lb and we are not far from £1 per lb.
At what stage is the the sheep review regime? Are we able as a country to negotiate the mechanics of the calculation of the ewe premium scheme that will not allow a high price for French lamb to militate against Irish farmers with a low ewe premium?
Rightly or wrongly, I blame the Minister for the fact that under Agenda 2000, the sheep farmers were forgotten. In so far as extensification is concerned, if sheep are to be counted let them be paid for; if not they should be kept out of the system. Otherwise we will see the biggest single withdrawal from sheep farming for many years. Unfortunately, it is already happening. The figures speak for themselves. I believe that 20% of farmers will get out of sheep farming over the next year of two.
We were impressed in France with the efforts of Bord Bia. We believe the board is sincere and is well directed in the overall sense. However, the time has now arrived for a huge injection of activity by the board in the area of in-store promotions and radio and television advertising, etc. The question of the linkage between the processor in Ireland, the producer and the retailer in the hypermarket in France must be examined. Every pound spent there will be well spent. We must do much more. On the day of our visit most members of the committee considered that an uphill battle will have to be fought, but we must fight it because if we are not second best on the French market the British will beat us. That would be a tragedy.
What has happened to allocation to young farmers of their milk quota? Rightly or wrongly, they heard the Minister last year refer to a maximum of 5,000 gallons. They have waited all year, but now there is talk of between 1,500 and 2,000 gallons. Even that does not seem to be materialising unless it was announced in the last day or two. I have not heard anything on that. If young farmers meant anything to the Minister and the Department, one would have thought that their allocation would be clearly and speedily communicated to them.
There is an increase in the Estimates for cattle breeding. Is the activity in cattle breeding as good as the Minister would like? I like what I hear, and have done so for the last couple of years, but I am not that sure that the delivery is as good as we would like. Will the Minister let me know the position on that?
Over the past couple of months I have noticed that the Department has indicated that it will back organic farming, through an advisory and scientific system. I recently attended a symposium on organic farming at Mellowes College, Athenry. There is room for it. There is a niche there for the best of farmers with an attention to detail. Organic farming is not for those who want a handy time or for those who believe all that is necessary is sunlight to make a living from it. I learnt a great deal from the symposium and have noted how the system is working. There is an opportunity here, albeit not a major one. There should be more in-depth training for those going into organic farming. I would like to think there is a niche market there from which many farmers or land users will be able to make a living or part of a living.
When will the Leader III Programme commence in its entirety? Everybody was delighted when the Minister set aside some funding to carry the Leader Programme companies over, but I am told all that has done is enable the payment of staff. They are unable to do anything else. Other than continuity, no new programmes are coming on stream. What is the current position?
This time last year I referred to the western development fund and I told the Minister it was disgraceful that £5 million was available that could not be spent. Twelve months later it is still not spent. I note from the Minister's speech that it is expected it will be released at the end of June. In the 20 years I have been in politics there has never been a harder £5 million to spend. It was kicked around and debated, and it was announced about 40 times.
It is as if they did not need it.
It looks that way, Chairman. At this stage they do not believe it is still coming. If the western development commission stands for anything, it stands for a deal with the various projects that are involved and some of them are sick to the teeth waiting for this. In Brussels matters may be slow, but for whatever reason this was extraordinarily slow.
There are huge problems down the road in agriculture. The recent study stated that 20% of farmers will work on a full-time basis in future years. We have a huge job to do on part-time farming, a concept with which I grew up. I see nothing wrong with part-time farming provided we are able to disperse around the country the industrial jobs which would keep farmers in situ. Irrespective of whether one is a full-time or part-time farmer, there must be an emphasis on training because one must do the job better than it was ever done before.
It is against that background, in as far as the export of cattle is concerned, that I want to see every opportunity given to every possible group who ever exported cattle, dead or alive. I hope the Minister will not forget about his commitment to opening the Iranian and Libyan markets. That issue is still on the agenda continually, and we could still do with them.
I welcome the Minister and his officials, and thank them for the presentation. Like my colleague, Deputy Connaughton, I appreciate the fact that the Estimate is readable, unlike some of the gobbledegook we get from some Departments which tends to confuse rather than clarify.
The central theme and thrust of the Minister's presentation, like those of previous Ministers, as always, is the necessity at all times to comply with EU directives, regulations, etc. When we travel abroad, which is rare and is an experience and a learning exercise, we find that the level of compliance in other countries does not match our own. Often I feel that we are great Europeans. Perhaps it has something to do with our history, but we tend to be overly rigorous in the area of compliance. As a matter of fact, we outdo the original proponents of EU directives. Looking at Ireland, I would say that they decide to include additions because the Irish are doing it at the end of the day. I am aware of and understand the direct effect of various EU directives, the direct applicability of regulations, etc., but I feel that we take everything, lock, stock and barrel, de rigueur, without ever asking how it impacts on us here. That is why I have always been vocal in calling for a statutory appeals mechanism to deal with decisions made by Irish officials regarding the implementation of EU schemes.
In fairness, the Minister pointed out that on the suckler cow scheme, due to our relaxed way of examining the heifer situation, we are now suffering some penalties and the Minister is prudently providing for it, but I would like to take some of those chaps to task come the time of audit because, as a person with legal experience, I do not know how they devise some of the rules they invent for us to implement. They must go into contortions to devise some of the rules because some of them are nonsensical. Some of them are incompatible with domestic laws, which is a serious issue. Ireland should take a stance to ensure that where there is possible incompatibility, or the perception of incompatibility, national rules and regulations would apply.
In that regard I have always called for a statutory appeals mechanism which allows people to make an oral presentation of their case where they have allegedly run foul of the EU regulations or rules pertaining to the various schemes, subsidies and direct income supports, on which, as the Minister stated, farmers are reliant now for well over 50% of their income. We appreciate the efforts which were made to secure that, and we acknowledge that.
For example, the REP scheme is bound up in so many regulations that one must spend 20 hours a day trying to comply with it. Take the case with which I am familiar of a husband and wife who have worked hard all their lives and who are involved in the REP scheme. Their planner, who is from Teagasc and therefore an official of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, told the couple that he sent their second year's application form, Form 1C, from his office to the Department prior to 30 September, which was the closing date. Then in November he wondered why there was no word of it and telephoned the Department. The Department sent him a fresh Form 1C, which he filled out and submitted indicating clearly to the structural section of the Department what transpired, but it responded by saying that it would impose a 50% reduction. This case is being dealt with by the Department in County Wexford, which is the Chairman's county. I am in no doubt that the Teagasc planner concerned, who, as I said, is an official of the Department, is an honourable person. Incidentally I went to school with him. Even if the Teagasc man were wrong, the Minister is visiting his sins on the unfortunate applicants who originally hired him. It does not make sense. It is wrong no matter how the Minister tries to interpret it because people are entitled to rely on those they engaged to act on their behalf. I will put every effort into this case and will give the couple whatever legal support and advice is needed free of charge to ensure the righting of this wrong.
Be that as it may, if a person in authority such as a Teagasc representative is prepared to swear an oath that the documents were submitted on time, it is time to take cognisance of that and accept that at face value unless the Minister can prove the contrary. The original application could have been mislaid in the Department, but that is never visited. That is the problem. The Department can commit a venial sin but never a mortal sin. If the farmer is engaging fraudulently, the Minister should wipe him out because he has no place in the industry we cherish and try to promote, and nobody here can make a case for such a farmer. I cannot emphasise enough the effect of an innocent or negligent misrepresentation on the unfortunate person or persons, of whom Deputy Connaughton spoke, who are at the butt end of the system, trying to keep it going. A letter stating that their payment is being reduced by 50% or wiped out creates untold havoc in a home.
We need to revisit this issue. The quicker the Minister gets that statutory appeals mechanism up and running the better. Although everything is hypothetical until the people decide, if I am a Member of the Dáil I intend to spend a great deal of time in front of that statutory appeals body and I will make sure the Department has proper legal advice because in each case I will fight tooth and nail. I will examine the genuineness of each case and pursue them vigorously on behalf of these people.
I want to talk about young farmers' installation aid for which, as far as I can see, £2 million is provided in the Estimates. How many farmers have been paid since 1 January 2000? The schemes to which I refer appear to have slowed down to a large degree and the Department does not appear to be in a hurry to expedite them. A similar situation obtains in respect of the farm investment schemes, the control of farmyard pollution scheme and the amalgam of schemes covering dairy hygiene, etc., to which the Minister referred. I congratulate him on putting those schemes in place, but farmers are concerned that decisions on their applications will not be made within the next two months. Other countries use a fast-track mechanism to have their schemes evaluated. Those countries' schemes will soon be up and running but farmers here will not be able to avail of this country's schemes. People are wondering what is happening.
It is imperative that the Commission should be furnished with the replies it has sought. I am aware that the Department has already provided a substantial number of replies but I urge the Minister to ensure that any outstanding replies are furnished as a matter of urgency to ensure that the schemes to which I refer are brought on stream. This will allay the concerns of would-be applicants who are wondering when the schemes will come into operation.
The situation with the farm retirement scheme is similar. A huge number of payments have been delayed since 1 January because no further applications have been taken. These people want to benefit from the new scheme but the Department has assured them that they will not lose out.
The Department gave a commitment that all the matters to which I refer would be evaluated within two months. Such a commitment should not have been given because it has undone a great deal of good work. It is a public relations disaster to give such a commitment which is blatantly false. I have received replies to parliamentary questions from the Minister in which it was been stated that matters are being dealt with and evaluated, that there is a backlog but that people will not lose any money. That is nonsense. It is like telling a person to keep his money in his pocket because you intend to borrow the money to buy him an ice-cream. That is wrong.
There is a major shortage of staff in the Department's offices in the midlands. In Mullingar, there is a grave shortage of staff. The local staff are up to their eyes and they are stretched to the limit. If I had anything adverse to say about these people I would not be shy about doing so, but I must compliment them on the job they are doing. They are working flat out and they are extremely receptive and helpful when one contacts the office by telephone. These people are doing their best but they are overworked. I know a number of people from Mullingar who are awaiting notice of appointment from the Civil Service and Local Appointments Commission who want to work in the Mullingar office. However, they have not yet been taken on. I notified the Minister of that fact on a previous occasion.
As the Minister stated, there is a great deal of work to be done and adequate numbers of staff must be recruited. The system for dealing with applications for the farm retirement scheme is not operating in the way the Minister originally envisaged. However, I do not doubt that he wanted and is committed to a quick turnaround in respect of this scheme.
Will the Minister indicate when Leader lll will come into operation? I welcome the publication of the White Paper on Rural Development. When does the Minister intend to give a definitive response in respect of the 2010 report? As he is aware, this report has been the subject of much debate and people are waiting for the Department to take the lead in this area. I am interested to know when the Minister's response will be forthcoming.
Deputy Connaughton made a number of points about the sheep rearing industry. I am very impressed by the vigour with which the French promote their product in their home market. We are inclined to be reticent to promote our product in the Irish market because we believe we might come into conflict with the EU regulations governing this area. We should not hold back and we should promote our products with great vigour. I pay tribute to Bord Bia which is working hard to promote Irish products in the French market. As Deputy Connaughton stated, the board is doing great work to maintain our hold on second position in the French market in terms of the sale of beef and lamb.
Does the Minister intend to introduce a national mutton assurance scheme or has the Department given any consideration to the introduction of such a scheme? The committee debated wool production and calls were made for the re-establishment of the wool board. Will the Minister comment on that?
With regard to beef production, I am aware that a great deal of work has been done on the mechanical grading system and I am was very interested in the results the Minister published at the recent Teagasc research day in Grange in that regard. However, I believe we must adopt, sooner rather than later, an objective method of classification in order to remove any element of subjectivity or the possibility of bias from the system. People must be paid for the beef they produce in terms of its quality alone. That is extremely important and we should introduce an objective method of classification as soon as possible. I congratulate the Minister on the progress made to date in this area but we must continue to move forward.
The future survival of beef farming will depend on breeding policy and I do not believe enough is being done in this area. We must try to ensure that the research results obtained at Grange are replicated throughout the country, particularly in terms of the level of penetration into EU markets and the policy of producing beef for particular market niches.
I do not wish to delay proceedings and I know the Chairman wishes to give the Minister an opportunity to reply. However, it is with irony that I recall speaking on previous occasions about area based systems. I believe I was the only politician in the Dáil to support the Irish Cattle Breeders and Stockowners Association. Other Members ran from this issue and they could not get under the table quickly enough. However, I never shirked the challenge and, in fact, I relished it. I continue to support the association's right to be represented on agriculture committees. It is a disgrace that the association is not properly represented on those committees. I hope that no other farming organisation is blocking their gaining such representation. If the Labour Party returns to Government, it will support the association's right to be represented on the various agriculture committees.
I am impressed by the area based system for sheep. I am glad that the results of the survey carried out in Roscommon two years ago are being assimilated into the system. Will the Minister indicate if he intends to introduce area based systems in other regions?
The Labour Party's new policy on organic production which is currently being developed will advocate the provision of significant supports to those already involved in this area. We will also be pushing for the provision of assistance to farmers who wish to become involved in organic production. As Deputy Connaughton stated, it is costly to become involved in this area and a particular level of expertise is required to succeed in it. The Department's recent acquisition of lands and its promotion of organic farming are welcome developments. What measures are being utilised to encourage farmers to move towards adopting organic methods of production? Less than 1% of agricultural output derives from organic production whereas the figure in Denmark, which started it much earlier, is 18%. It is a specialised area, but it is one for the future. It would be remiss of us not to pay attention to it. I thank the Minister for his presentation.
I welcome the Minister and his officials. When one reflects on the number of people present, it is not long ago since they came out of the woodwork and sat around the table to discuss the State's role in agriculture. It is a tribute to the Minister and his officials that they have turned agriculture around. I do not mean to be political as all sides of the House were present. It is a good sign and I thank the Minister.
I am delighted the farm investment schemes have been continued because they are important, particularly the control of farmyard pollution scheme. Deputy Penrose referred to the importance of REPS. Many people would not have been able to take up the scheme without the reintroduction of farmyard pollution grants. Investing £14 million in such on-farm schemes is important. If more is needed, I am sure the Minister will provide it.
I also welcome the £1 million allocation to assist pig producers in the Border region because I am aware of how they suffered over the past number of years in Cavan and Monaghan. Leader III is important for everybody and like Deputy Connaughton I would like to know when it will come into play. It is important for rural communities that it and the farm retirement scheme should be continued. The old scheme has finished. When will the new scheme be in place?
Regarding the export of live cattle, we can talk about getting paid for quality. Cattle are sold to factories for £1.03 per pound. Not long ago the price paid was 75 pence per pound. That is an indication of the pressure on factories because of the export of huge numbers of live cattle. That is the only way pressure can be kept on them to maintain the price for farmers. As Deputy Connaughton said, it is important that great numbers of cattle are exported, dead or alive, although I received a letter from a man in Dunboyne giving out about the amount of live cattle leaving Ireland and so forth. It is important to any of us that suffered at the hands of meat processors down the years. The Minister has done a great job in this area and I hope it continues.
I am glad to note that Deputy Penrose is prepared to represent farmers for free. I will send all the farmers in Wexford to him from now on.
I thank Members for their valuable assessment of the Estimate and comments on the state of agriculture and its attendant schemes. Deputy Connaughton raised the possible reintroduction of the 60 day test. The committee on animal diseases examined this last week. Considerable money has been spent on animal disease eradication and we are no nearer a resolution even though a small percentage of the cattle population is affected. The Animal Health Forum will make a recommendation but it is not on my desk yet.
Is it on the way?
I have not received it yet.
Regarding BSE compensation, under the partnership programme we are committed to introducing a valuation on farm for all reactors and that should give people a better deal, taking into account income loss. Various schemes were mentioned, such as REPS, farm retirement and young farmer installation aid. An important meeting takes place in Brussels on Friday and I do not know whether we will get clearance. However, we have agreed Agenda 2000 proposals, the Exchequer funding is in place and we want to implement the schemes. There has been no delay in our responses on these schemes, which were submitted before Christmas. We have responded in the meantime and the sooner we get the go-ahead the better.
With regard to sheep, I am glad Deputy Connaughton made the trip to the Rungis market and it is a good initiative to take a trip every now and again. I went on a useful trip recently to northern Italy to some of the feed lots where some of our younger cattle are sent and it is educational.
A great deal of work has been done on the statutory appeals unit and we are tidying it up. I spoke to the officers dealing with that earlier. There has been a change of attitude by some farming organisations. They recognise that Members can table parliamentary questions and so on but if they cannot obtain responses from an appeals unit, such as the NRA, a communication system is needed. I am committed to introducing an appeals unit.
I will make my definitive response to Government on the 2010 report by the end of this month. Almost £1 million is provided for in based organic farming and Athenry college is also being used. EU rules are quite difficult and we had some disallowances but we are trying out best to obtain the maximum. A programme on BBC two weeks ago highlighted how receptive and more helpful we are.