I welcome the Minister and his officials to this meeting to consider the Revised Estimates for the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. I do not wish to stifle people's contributions but I suggest that after the Minister's speech of approximately 15 minutes the two main spokespersons, Deputies Dukes and Penrose, would have 15 minutes each and other committee members could have five minutes.
Estimates for Public Services, 2001.
Vote 31 - Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (Revised).
I was taken aback when I heard this proposal yesterday. We have a Revised Estimate of £858.5 million before us and a series of issues arising from that. I do not know how much the Minister intends to say but I have quite a number of questions to ask. I cannot give any guarantee that either my questions or comments will be contained within 15 minutes. As a Member of this House for 20 years, and a former Minister in several capacities, it is not on for the Government to come in and expect in the space of two hours to have the nod given to £859 million worth of expenditure with 15 minutes allocated for each of the main Opposition spokespersons and ten minutes to the Minister to reply. I am not prepared to agree to that and I will not be bound by it. The Government had better mend its hand and in a general way start treating this House and committees of the House with a little more respect than is implicit in that.
We had the same difficulty in this committee with the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources. It was, granted, a smaller Estimate but he expected to come in here and have it passed within the space of an hour. It is not on and will not work. I would not guarantee that we will finish with this Estimate today. I will not hold up proceedings deliberately or be obstructive in any way but there is a lot in this Estimate and a number of serious issues to be discussed as the Minister knows since he has been dealing ably with them for some time. They deserve a bit more attention than the suggested timetable would indicate.
I thank the Deputy for his comments. It was just a suggestion based on the fact that we got a letter from the Whip's office asking that all Estimates be completed by the end of June and we can get only so many time slots here. I have no problem if it continues next week or the week after. It was only a suggestion to try to get the Estimates concluded. Next week we return to the Marine Estimate and will hopefully conclude that.
This is a significant Estimate and we should not curtail the debate on it. There are many questions related to it. I understand it is not the Chair's intention to restrict us and hopefully it is not the Minister's either. It is part of his work to be tied to timetables set elsewhere. We should send a message that we cannot be coerced into a timetable as we want to fulfil our parliamentary duty in a proper fashion.
I would like to make it clear that I do not have any proposal for the curtailment of this debate and neither did I make any such suggestion.
I am pleased to present the 2001 Estimate for the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development to the committee. I propose first to discuss the exceptional challenges which the year has already presented and then to comment on some of the measures which are of most interest to Deputies, before commending the Estimate to the committee.
Following the detection of cases of BSE on the continent beef consumption across the EU fell by around 30% in the first two months of 2000. Urgent measures were required to restore confidence to ensure that markets did not go into freefall. The measures negotiated in Brussels included purchase of cattle for destruction as an exceptional market support measure to protect the incomes of farmers. Ireland was to the fore in implementing this scheme quickly and effectively.
The scheme has been successful in attaining its main objectives. I estimate that, by its conclusion on 30 June, the PFD scheme will have taken in some 275,000 surplus animals representing a purchase value to farmers of approximately £200 million. As a result of this market support measure prices to producers in Ireland have been maintained around the 88p to 90p per lb. By contrast prices for bull beef in Germany fell to 60p per lb. between October and January and are still only about 75p per lb.
Financially, the impact of the PFD scheme on the Vote is huge as EU financing is limited to refunding 70% of the capital cost over time. I have provided £110 million under subhead L.1, market intervention, for operation of the scheme. In approximate terms, £63 million has been provided for the 30% national contribution towards the purchase cost. A further £47 million is being provided for the secure disposal of the resulting animal by-products.
This is a big task as EU regulations require the Department to ensure full tracking of all by-products through the rendering to final disposal. A scheme of purchase of stocks of meat and bonemeal has been put in place on a temporary basis. I have provided £40 million under the subhead C.3 for the purchase and destruction of such stocks. The amount of meat and bonemeal in storage at present is approximately 127,000 tonnes, up to May 2001.
Market prospects were also shaken by the detection of foot and mouth disease in the UK and the single case in Ireland. I was extremely pleased to announce in recent weeks the successful conclusion of negotiations with the Lebanese authorities on the reopening of the Lebanon market for Irish live cattle. This showed Lebanese confidence in the Irish cattle and beef sector and in the regulatory system in place in Ireland. That trade has been particularly important as it involved the supply of finished cattle and operated on a regular basis taking over 60,000 cattle from Ireland last year alone.
Following rapidly on that success and the earlier reopening of the Spanish and Italian market for younger animals, I was able to announce the reopening of the Russian market for Irish beef and pork. This market is hugely important for Ireland accounting for 15,000 tonnes of beef and 6,500 tonnes of pork in 2000. The reopening followed intensive efforts by myself and by my officials over a number of weeks. As well as the top priority being given by the Department to reopening markets, a co-ordinated political, diplomatic and technical effort was made involving also An Bord Bia and the Department of Foreign Affairs through its various embassies.
The reopening of the valuable and important Egyptian market has been a priority. Expert and diplomatic contacts have been maintained at the highest levels. Senior veterinary officials of the Department have visited Egypt, most recently since Easter, and a high level Egyptian technical team will visit Ireland in August to assess the range of health measures in operation on the ground. We hope that real progress will be achieved in response to the dedicated efforts in this area.
The second great challenge this year has been the detection of foot and mouth disease in the UK and its rapid spread. Measures taken swiftly here and in the North and the vigilance exercised in rural areas and in the wider community have been successful in preventing huge damage to agriculture and the economy as a whole. Continued vigilance in matters of animal health and traceability is key to maintaining this position.
I have spoken many times of the great effort which was made by all sections of our community to prevent the disease entering the country. I want to reiterate these views on this occasion and also to thank the opposition parties and their spokespersons for the very constructive approach which they took during the difficult period from February onwards.
Expenditure on measures to prevent and combat foot and mouth disease is funded from subhead C.3, the general disease control subhead. Expenditure incurred to date in connection with FMD amount to about £12.9 million, that is, £6.2 million in respect of compensation to farmers in County Louth and elsewhere, and £6.7 million in respect of general costs including disinfectant measures, offices at Ballymascanlon and slaughter/rendering costs. Significant administrative costs chargeable to the A subheads have also been incurred in respect of staff assigned to the Border, and Ballymascanlon, etc. Total precautionary slaughterings amount to about 6,000 animals -outside County Louth, where 54,000 animals were culled. These measures have led to the detection of a certain irregularities in claims for ewe premia and have provided information to assist investigations already under way as regards illegal imports in the case of cattle pre-dating the FMD outbreak on 20 February 2001.
The Estimates provide substantial funds under the national development plan for the agriculture, food and related rural development areas. The total amount involved for the years 2000 to 2006 is £4.2 billion, with £1.7 billion of this coming from the EU. The main Department programme under the NDP is the CAP rural development plan. This comprises REPS, early retirement and compensatory allowances - formerly headage payments. The schemes, which are provided under subheads L.4 to L.7, will facilitate structural change, support farmers on low incomes and promote sustainable development.
Some 45,000 farmers have already participated in REPS and the rural development programme envisages an increase by the year 2006 to 70,000, including farmers who have taken out a second REPS plan. Such a high participation rate by the farming community is an excellent preparation for a national and EU environmentally sensitive approach to sustainable farming, whether full-time or part-time. For this year I have provided £170 million under subhead L.4 and higher amounts will be provided year on year. Total expenditure on REPS, early retirement and compensatory allowances will amount this year to over £400 million. That is nearly half the expenditure on the Vote. These schemes provide important income support to farmers - and to those thinking of handing on to the next generation - over and above the area aid and premia payments managed outside the Vote by the Department as an accredited EU paying agency.
Deputies will be aware of my particular commitment to on-farm investment and anti-pollution measures over the years. I am providing an amount of £28.6 million under subhead M.10 for this purpose. The farm waste management measure under the national plan accounts for £16 million and dairy hygiene for £5 million. The subhead also includes £3.6 million for installation aid. Deputies may wish to note that this is on top of the £3 million provided in subhead J.5 to complete the national scheme of installation aid, a State aid which was cleared with the commission as a bridging measure. Since the on-farm investment schemes were launched, 1,000 applications have been received.
An amount of £11million has been allocated to subhead M.11 for other structural measures such as the area based rural development initiative, a rural development fund, alternative enterprises, farm relief services, improvement in equine quality and the development of the horticulture, potato and organic sectors.
Despite certain difficult market situations the overall performance of the food industry in recent years has been satisfactory. It now accounts for 10.5% of both GDP and total employment while in 2000, its exports were valued at £5.4 billion representing 9.4% of total exports and 27% of net foreign earnings. Under the national development plan, assistance totalling £282 million will be provided to the industry in the period up to 2006. These measures have been designed to assist the industry in meeting a variety of challenges which lie ahead by helping it to enhance its competitiveness and innovative capability while at the same time ensuring that development is underpinned by attention to food safety. The funding is made up of £120 million in capital investment, £83 million in research, technology and innovation, £48 million for marketing and promotion and £31million towards the human resources needs of the industry. Much of the primary funding is provided through the budgets of semi-State bodies. In Vote terms Deputies will see that substantial allocations are made in this Estimate by way of grants-in-aid to An Bord Glas and Bord Bia -subheads D.1 and E.1 - and the allocation under subhead M7 for institutional research and development in the food sector, which will rise during the period of the plan.
The Horse and Greyhound Racing Bill, 2001, is progressing through the Dáil and it is hoped will be through both Houses this term. This legislation will provide for the restructuring of the way the horse racing industry is organised and funded. This includes the establishment of a new body to be called Horse Racing Ireland (HRI) to replace the Irish Horse Racing Authority (IHA) and take over certain functions of the Turf Club. The new funding arrangements will for the first time guarantee the horse and greyhound racing industries a level of investment related to the turnover in off-course betting, will allow both sectors to grow to develop to their full potential and will for the foreseeable future satisfy the needs of these rapidly changing industries. As a result the Estimates for 2001 provides for over £37 million (\46 million) to the newly established HRI, and over £9 million (\11million) to Bord na gCon. The legislation will guarantee those bodies at least those amounts, inflation proofed, for the next few years. This is of the order of £20 million (\25 million) per year greater than that currently being provided by the State. In accordance with the Bill, as it stands, this arrangement will be reviewed by the Oireachtas in about four years time when the cumulative funding provided under this mechanism will have reached the limit of £200 million.
The substantially increased funding under the new arrangement is justified on the basis that the horse and greyhound industries are important from the viewpoint of the employment they give to over 30,000 people and the significant contribution they make to rural development, farm or other income, tourism, the economy as a whole and the international reputation of the State. Irish thoroughbreds focus attention abroad on this country's exceptional capability to produce top quality animals in a competitive and environmentally friendly way. The recent magnificent double achieved by Galileo and Imagine in the Epsom Derby and Oaks is a testament to this.
The Leader programme has made a considerable impact on rural development and local communities by giving local people an opportunity to plan the development of their areas. I am providing over £20 million this year and urge groups to complete their planned projects in order that the funding committed is taken up within the deadlines set down.
Leader II made a considerable impact on rural development and local communities in the period 1995 to 2000 and final payments are now being made. In the period to 2006 the programme will be delivered in two ways, the new EU initiative, Leader+ and a separate Leader type programme in the national development plan, the area based rural initiative. Funding of over £117 million has been allocated to the new Leader programmes over the period to 2006, some £8 million of which has been provided for 2001.
Despite the particular difficulties we have had to face this year the outlook for agriculture as well as the economy as a whole remains good. The European Commission has provided an analysis of the likely developments of EU agricultural markets up to the end of 2007. There are areas of uncertainty, for example, concerns about economic and financial imbalances in the global economy, the rise in oil prices, the uneven pattern of economic growth in the United States, Japan and the European Union and the new round of WTO multilateral trade negotiations. However, on a commodity basis, the outlook is positive for the dairying, sheepmeat, pigmeat, poultry and cereals sectors. There is uncertainty in the EU beef market where the latest BSE scare undermined the recovery in consumption between 1996 and 2000. In Ireland, however, active management of the destruction scheme has protected the beef sector by removing surpluses from the market and ensuring a reasonable price to the producer. Pig and sheepmeat prices are currently strong and discussions are under way in Brussels on changes in the ewe premium to provide more stability for producers. Growth is set to continue in the wider economy, though probably at a slower pace. We can be cautiously optimistic.
The Estimates for 2001 represent a huge commitment to agricultural producers as well as the food industry and rural development. In gross terms, the amount proposed is £1.191 billion, a full £364 million above last year's outturn. In net terms, the Estimate of £858.531 million is 49% higher than the 2000 outturn. These record amounts are targeted to achieve the objectives of the national development plan for 2000 to 2006 and manage the exceptional difficulties arising this year. Together with the significant provision for information technology and some increase in staff numbers the Estimates provide an excellent basis for ensuring a first class service to the Department's clients in the agriculture, food and rural development areas and accountability at both national and EU level.
I commend the Estimate of £858.531 million to the committee.
In the remarks I made earlier I did not intend to level any criticism at you, a Chathaoirligh, or the Minister. My remarks are intended more for the Government Whip. The Minister is collectively responsible with the Government Whip for the way the Government does its business. We have all been on both sides of the House at various times and know that Whips can sometimes be rather unrealistic creatures and need to be reminded of the realities of life from time to time.
I do not share the Minister's view that we can be cautiously optimistic. I note what he says in his very rapid review of the outlook. It is very interesting to read that the outlook is positive for the dairying, sheepmeat, pigmeat, poultry and cereals sectors in view of all the other issues he raised. There is, however, the fly in the ointment and it is a very big one.
The Minister says there is uncertainty in the EU beef market where the latest BSE scare undermined the recovery in consumption between 1996 and 2000. That is a moderate understatement. There is uncertainty in the EU beef market. We are not yet certain what matters will be like in other markets, even where they are opened. As the Minister pointed out, one of our principal markets, Egypt, is not yet open. He is saying that the outlook is cautiously optimistic but there is a very big question mark over one of the biggest components of our agri-food industry. This means we would have reason to be less than optimistic, however cautiously.
We face a very difficult prospect, in view of some of the factors that the Minister himself indicated, including the uneven pattern of economic growth in the United States and the new round of WTO multilateral trade negotiations. Taken together with all the rest, the prospects for agriculture are not at all optimistic, they are downright gloomy. I do not like saying that and prophets of doom are never welcome. However, it is a fact and a view shared by the majority of our farming community, as the Minister knows given that, like the rest of us, he meets them regularly.
We should not try to gild the lily unrealistically by making statements of this kind. Life is difficult for farming in Ireland today and the prospects are that it will get more difficult. There is no point in trying to hide this. That is evidenced by the fact that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find successors on many farms. It is in that light that we should approach the job that we must do in looking at how EU agricultural policy is framed and implemented and how we add our own national contribution to it.
This might not be directly appropriate to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development but I am not convinced that the mandate given by the Council of Ministers to the Commission for the World Trade Organisation negotiations is one that would give me any hope the European Union will defend itself any better on this occasion in discussions on agricultural trade than it did the last time. The last agreement was entirely unbalanced.
In the European Union we have agreed broadly to dismantle our export assistance mechanisms in terms of reducing our prices and export refunds. The European Union was obliged on that occasion to give guarantees of access to its markets to certain trading partners, the CAIRNS group of countries in particular. There is nothing in the mandate given to it for the negotiations or in the way it intends to conduct the negotiations that suggests to me the Commission will act in a more muscular way on this occasion than it did on the last one.
On the last occasion, as the Minister knows, the then Agriculture Commissioner, the Minister's former colleague, Mr. Ray MacSharry, was undermined from within the Commission by the Foreign Trade Commissioner who was separately coming to understandings with the United States about other areas such as intellectual property rights etc. Mr. MacSharry found himself out on a limb. I hope that will not happen this time and there is nobody in the Commission on this occasion who will be operating in the way that then Commissioner Andreessen was operating the last time around. The Minister needs to be vigilant about this. Although I have asked for it on a number of occasions, I have seen no evidence that the Government is taking any energetic steps to ensure matters turn out differently on the next occasion.
I will take up the points in the order in which the Minister made them. He started by talking about the BSE scheme. I note the Minister states that intervention for steer beef is expected to restart in July. I would like to know more about the nature and possible extent of that intervention. There is a widespread fear in the farming community that we will see a difficult summer, and a more difficult autumn and winter in the beef sector. It appears to many people in the business that intervention will be of more than passing interest. The Minister should give some indication of the extent and scope of that intervention, and the price level that will come from it. There are many beef producers who would like to have an assurance that the price levels they have seen up to now through the BSE scheme will be maintained through the rest of the year.
On the issue of foot and mouth disease, I would like the Minister to indicate the reality of these opened-up markets. We have been told the Spanish market for live cattle is open again. All reports that I have heard are to the effect that shippers are finding it difficult to cope with the regulations and get cattle moving out there. I realise the situation there has been substantially changed by the further easing of restrictions that the Minister announced yesterday. This will help to get that trade flowing again.
The Russian market is open again. Will the Minister give some indication of the quantities likely to be demanded there, and the level of liquidity in that market? There is always a market for beef as people want to eat it, but how much are they prepared to pay for it? Is the Russian market one that is of interest to us in practical terms at a price level that makes it worthwhile? On the subject of the Egyptian market, we believed up to about June 1997 that the Minister had a magic wand and could say "open sesame" to any market in the world. The reality seems to be a little different. He does not have a magic wand and instead we are treated to discourses on the devil of a job the Minister is doing with his technical and veterinary experts, trotting back and forth to Cairo. However, we do not see that market open.
All who worked on prevention measures during the foot and mouth disease crisis deserve our heartfelt thanks and commendation for the job they did. I know the Minister agrees with me on that. They coped superbly with a difficult situation. We will be grateful to them for a long time. However, as I said at the time, there was an element of luck to our successful containment of the disease, especially in the nine days after the first outbreak in Northern Ireland. We were blessed with luck in that we did not have an outbreak in the period before movement controls were applied. One of the lessons is that the documents and manuals on this subject should now be looked at again. Inside the cover page of each manual, it should be written in the biggest letters possible, "Step One - Ban All Movement of Animals." We had the devils own luck in that first week. There might have been a much bigger problem.
Can the Minister tell us what measures will be taken on foot of what we know went on in the early stages of the foot and mouth disease outbreak? It is a matter of record, stated in an affidavit by a person centrally involved in the difficulties we had with animal movements, that he moved a consignment of sheep through a meat factory in Kildare, by arrangement. Those same sheep, by arrangement, were taken from that meat factory to farms elsewhere in the country. What investigation has the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, or other appropriate authorities, carried out? Were officials in the Department not doing their job? Were they not there when they should have been? What was the level of involvement of officials of the company in question in that arrangement?
It is a matter not just of practice but of law that an animal that arrives at a meat slaughtering premises can only leave it dead. They are not supposed to leave it alive, for good reasons. What investigations are being carried out into that alleged arrangement? Who was party to it? Under what conditions were they party to it and what action is being taken? Many people also want to know what arrangements were in place in Athleague when consignments arrived there. What inspection procedures were in place there? Were they carried out or neglected? Were people there not doing their duty or were people who should have been present not so? We need answers to those questions.
Does the Minister believe there are lessons we can learn from this? This is the time to say these things publicly. I had the honour of knowing a man, now deceased, who spent most of his working life with the Revenue Commissioners, working as an inspector in bonded warehouses. It was, and still is, a matter of practice that those inspectors are left in place for only a short period. They are moved around so that they do not form friendly relationships with the people running these establishments. Is the Minister giving thought to implementing that position in relation to officials operating on behalf of his Department at meat factories? I am not about to make extraordinary allegations or impute bad motives to anybody, but it is counter-productive for the proper operation of strict inspection procedures, that people spend too long in one place. A degree of familiarity is bound to emerge and we can see some slipshod work being done.
I am confirmed in that feeling by a response that some Members received at the early stages of the outbreak. It was asked how it was possible for a sheep that had come in from Britain, and had its tags removed from its ears, to be passed for slaughter in a factory without further comment. We were told that Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development staff inspecting such animals were looking at them from a public health point of view, as if that in some way absolved them of the duty of looking at the ears of the animals. It was said that they did not see the holes in the animal's ears where the tags had been removed because they were looking at the animals from a public health perspective. That says a great deal about the operation of these necessary controls in meat factories.
The Minister referred some time later to certain irregularities in claims for ewe premiums. He spoke of investigations already under way into illegal imports of cattle before the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. He knows the only conclusion the rest of us can reach when looking at various investigations carried out by other bodies long before this happened is that the action taken in this area has been excessively tardy, to put it mildly. It is an odd reflection on the official approach to some of these issues that information made available earlier was followed up only from the viewpoint of the Revenue Commissioners. Action was taken to prevent the State from being defrauded and making wrongful reimbursements of VAT, but no action was taken from an animal health point of view, which is at least as important as the operation of a VAT reimbursement scam.
Many other issues arise from the Estimate and I will mention some as briefly as I can. Subhead A7 deals with consultancy services and a later subhead deals with various veterinary issues. Is the Minister aware of an animal tracking system called Eurovet, which involves the real time on-line tracking of animals? It is offered by an Irish company which developed the system under an EU programme in an applicant country. The system has been taken up by four other applicants and is being looked at in Germany. Will the Minister get his Department to consider Eurovet, as it would help us to deal with problems in animal health?
The Minister, along with all other members of the committee, knows there are enormous problems for farmers who wish to comply with a system that uses cattle tags and log book records of lengthy code numbers. That cannot be a real time on-line system.
Sitting suspended at 5.23 p.m. and resumed at 5.38 p.m.
In subhead A.8 provision is made for supplementary measures to protect the financial interests of the EU. I cannot find anything in the Estimate or any reference to what I know is the Minister's stated intention to set up a separate intervention agency outside of his Department to handle these matters. Perhaps the Minister can give us some indication of how this issue currently stands?
Subhead B.1 covers research and testing and this is a matter which I hope to have an opportunity to talk to the Minister about next week during Question Time. What is the position with regard to the laboratory in Athlone? It appears the process of refurbishment has not been completed and, as I understand it, there have been some difficulties with the staff in carrying out work there. It appears there are some disputes with staff that will not be resolved until the necessary refurbishment has been completed. My information is that it also affects the staff in Backweston as there are certain operations that cannot be taken up there because they need back-up from the laboratory in Athlone. Perhaps the Minister could give us an update of where we are in that regard?
There is a substantial provision made here with regard to Teagasc. I draw the Minister's attention to the certificate courses offered by Teagasc. A particular problem has emerged for part-time farmers and, as the Minister knows, there is a large proportion of our current farming population who run farms and have other occupations. Given the way the Teagasc courses are now structured, it is virtually impossible for anybody in that type of enterprise to pursue a course and get a Teagasc qualification. People cannot afford to be away from their farms and their supplementary jobs for the placement period required on another farm. It is a matter I have taken up with Teagasc and so far I have not got a satisfactory answer. Perhaps there is a deficiency in the way I put it, but I do not think the authorities in Teagasc appreciate just what the nature of the problem is. I cannot imagine that it would be impossible to meet the needs of people in circumstances of that kind.
I think I am right in saying there is no provision in the Estimate before us for sheep tagging. If that is the case will we have a supplementary Estimate later to cover this? Subhead C.5 deals with cattle registration and tagging. Unless I have been deficient in my study of it I do not find any reference to sheep tagging.
Subhead D.2 deals with the development of organic farming. This committee had a meeting some time ago with representatives of the three groups that deal with organic farming. Can the Minister give an update on where we are with the proposed new standards? There was some disagreement between the three organisations, or rather there was a difference of view between two of the organisations and the other one. They all jointly had some differences with the Department on the implementation of standards, and can we be informed if there has been any resolution of that situation?
With regard to the provisions for the Irish Horseracing Authority, Bord na gCon and so on, we have had the opportunity to discuss that recently in the HRI Bill. I do not intend to go into it again, except once more to deplore that the Minister cannot see his way to agreeing to a very reasonable request that punters should be represented on the board. The Minister apparently has no difficulty in defining representative organisations of punters that he can consult through the medium of the forum, but when it comes to putting them on the board, he seems to have some difficulty. I do not think that Bill has finished in the Seanad yet, has it?
No.
Then the Minister has an opportunity to mend his hand. I am sure that if the Bill comes back to the Dáil with an appropriate amendment we will give it a very speedy passage, although I will not hold my breath waiting for that.
I am delighted to see that in subhead E.5 funding is provided for the establishment of a new national agriculture and eventing exhibition and international show and competition centre at Punchestown. I am not being parochial when I say that because as it happens, Punchestown is across the road from my constituency. It is actually in the constituency of Kildare North.
I might go myself.
I recommend that the Deputy spends as much time as possible there.
Can the Minister tell us how he sees this provision of £5 million for the western investment fund being used? The Western Development Commission is not happy with the role it has been given in western development in general. It thought it would have a more muscular role than it now seems to have. That was also my hope. The Western Development Commission, the Government's response to it and the western investment fund could have provided an opportunity to rationalise and clarify many of the measures in place and achieved a breakthrough in development in the west. It is part of a wider set of problems concerning the proliferation of various bodies. I know the Minister is not responsible for the county and city development boards, but we have the Leader and Leader+ programmes and the national measure being put in place to supplement the Leader+ programme which we have discussed before and on which the Minister is acting sensibly.
The proliferation of bodies occurs at both national and local level. I hope in the debate on the local government Bill later to suggest that it is time somebody stood back and examined this proliferation to see how the system could be simplified and rationalised. I am not proposing that we take away any responsibility or capability that now exists at local level where development is concerned. However, there are too many doors on which to knock at this stage. A great number involved in a voluntary capacity in the development process believe, rightly or wrongly, that they are being sent hither and thither before finding a home for the projects they have in mind. It would be worthwhile to commission an appropriate person or body to examine the complex network of bodies which exist to see if it can be simplified.
Can the Minister inform us, without revealing any State secrets, if he believes it would be possible to further increase the provision under subhead 12 concerning food aid donations for the World Food Programme? A provision of £3 million seems to be very modest, although there are other subheads in the Estimates for other Departments that partly cover this. It is out of keeping with the Government's stated intention regarding the assistance of developing countries.
It is probably rude to ask the Minister whether the local authorities are happy with the provision of £2 million in subhead J3 for the control of horses. They could do with a little more money to do the job they are supposed to do. We are lacking in proper monetary provision throughout the country. This is another case in which the Government is handing over a function to the local authorities without giving them the necessary resources to carry it out.
Let us consider aid for farmers, including the installation scheme for young farmers and the corresponding early retirement scheme for farmers. Will the Minister consider simplifying and clarifying the rules and procedures for these schemes? I am not alone in asking this. I have met many farmers, who, for various reasons, did not qualify for one scheme or the other. The Minister knows this because we have told him about it.
There are cases in which farmers take advice from Teagasc and local offices of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development only to find that, when they have gone through the procedures to apply for the farm retirement or installation schemes, they are ruled out because of some detail or other. Those are two of the most valuable schemes we have in terms of aid for the development of agriculture, but they are also two of the most complex. Will the Minister tell us what he really thinks about the Commission's reaction to every proposal to provide for some indexation of the farm retirement pension? As far as I know, the Commission always returns with the statement that the farm retirement pension under this scheme is, in any case, higher than the corresponding national pension and, therefore, does not require alteration. That is not an adequate answer, given the nature of the scheme and the limited period for which farmers can benefit from it.
I have heard the Minister say on many occasions that he would like to see 70,000 in the REPS by 2006. He reiterated that today. It is a perfectly legitimate ambition, but I would go further. We are approaching a compulsory REPS-type scheme. My belief is that the understandable pressure from the environmental point of view will push every form of economic activity further into an eco-friendly mode. I foresee that we will all be expected to operate in a way that adheres to the standards of the scheme.
Local authorities are now obliged to implement a certain number of environmental directives in their area of authority. There is a problem in the crossover between those directives and the REPS. The latter scheme provides assistance for farmers to engage in environmentally beneficial activities, but if any of the things they are doing is required by law, REPS aid cannot be given for it. Certain by-laws that will be passed by local authorities will make some of the activities eligible for aid obligatory, thus cancelling eligibility for aid for those activities under the REPS.
I have been asking for months that the Ministers in the Departments of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and the Environment and Local Government join forces to resolve the problem. I have spoken to local authority members from various parts, including a number from the Minister's party, and they see this as one of the problems they will have to face in the near future. They are somewhat baffled by it.
Why is there only a token provision in subhead M1 for farm investment, given that the Minister spoke about his interest in the control of farm pollution? When will Leader+ get under way? Does the Minister believe the provisions under subheads M8 and M10 will be adequate for the demand we are likely to experience? I suspect that subheads M8 and M10 are the answer to my question on subhead M1. I know that a lot of the work has been slowed down and could not take place since February. Does the Minister expect to see operations carried out under these headings in the near future? I apologise to other members of the committee for having subjected them to this but we so rarely get the opportunity to have a comprehensive discussion on these issues that we would be negligent in our duties if we did not debate them at some length.
I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this important Estimate. Like Deputy Dukes, I believe it is important that we explore it thoroughly and a number of questions will arise from that process. I welcome the increase in the Estimate.
Despite putting significant sums into the agricultural industry, the numbers who give agriculture as their primary occupation continue to fall. We can examine this in the context of the 2010 report and certainly have a lot of head-scratching to do. The problem is that the Department has not set out a vision. It has left the 2010 report to one side and nothing has happened. The report indicates that there will be 20,000 to 25,000 farmers in less than a decade's time.
We should be focusing on how we will react to the WTO negotiations, for which we should be preparing, and how they will impact further. Deputy Dukes said most schemes will be eco-friendly and REPS based. He is correct in that, they will be area based. This is something I advocated, even though farming organisations often claim that money will be lost to the country. Back in the 1970s I thought the reason this money was coming into the country was to maintain the maximum number of families on the land. The funding should be skewed in such a way that it would achieve that very worthy objective, which has been honoured more in words than in action. It would have a number of advantages: it would be targeted, efficient and effective. It would get around a lot of the bureaucracy, which is growing at an alarming rate. I note that some of the farming organisations will embark on a campaign about this. Some of them would not want to listen to us but I listen to the people they purport to represent. I advocated this in 1992 and 1997 and got a significant farming vote. It is time to start telling people that there will be significant difficulties ahead. Deputy Dukes said it in a different way. He would not hold the same view as me but it behoves us to start a debate on this. We should not repeat the error of the debate in the past month.
Late summer and early autumn will herald difficulties for the beef industry. No one wants to be the purveyor of doom and gloom but we have to let people know that there may be problems ahead. That is the reason we must examine alternative ways. Governments of all hues have spent significant money on agriculture. Less than 25 years ago there were more than 300,000 engaged full-time in agriculture. Today the number is approaching 40,000 to 50,000. This Estimate recognises that there are a significant number of part-time farmers, something we will have to consider in the context of planning for the next decade.
The foot and mouth difficulties were handled well. Deputy Dukes said we enjoyed a slice of luck, which the Minister acknowledged. I agree with Deputy Dukes that there should be an evaluation of that whole process. I would like to make sure that we do not forget that we had difficulties. We should adopt some of the processes used in North America, such as a simulated exercise and responses. We should not shelve this. We have got over it and done well, but we must ensure we are better prepared for the next difficulty. In the Dáil I advocated the banning of animal movements as soon as news of the outbreak emerged. That was the kernel of the solution and the Minister did take that step within a short time. He did consult with us at every opportunity and no one could have been more open in the way in which the crisis was handled on which I thank him and his officials.
Up to ten days ago people who carried out work for the Department, including overtime, to fight this scourge had not been paid certain moneys. When I raised a question about this in the Dáil a fortnight ago, I hope the Minister was listening - the Taoiseach certainly was. The Department demonstrated some tardiness in paying some people. I got information on this about three weeks ago and disregarded it because I believed it could not happen. Then I got it from an impeccable source. If this money is not paid by next week, I will ask in the Dáil for a full breakdown, including the names of parties who volunteered and worked overtime and have not been paid. I hope everybody who played a role in this will have their dues and entitlements given to them.
Some parts of the beef market are recovering slowly in terms of consumption. People seem to be moving towards buying higher quality cuts. This may create difficulties. It is all about market penetration, a matter we have discussed before. The Department took steps towards facilitating breeding and the penetration of particular markets. At one time we were only able to access 20% to 25% of the high quality markets of the European Union. On targeting and the efficient use of available moneys, the Department has paid out more than £1 billion in the past 12 months to the farmers. I am sure Deputy Brady would agree that paying the same amount in terms of premium for a Holstein calf as for a good continental or Whitehead cross, which are beef breeds, does not make sense. This could be difficult to accept in the South - I appreciate the political realities of life. The farm organisations probably would not agree either. However, that was a way of ensuring we have top quality stock and greater market penetration in two or three years' time, and it would be a greater incentive for dairy farms which would get their 20% or 25% replacement rates and thereafter breed to a proven sire, with all the beef and sire quality attached thereto. That is why the money should be targeted or skewed in favour of the beef industry. That is where the biggest problems are. However, I understand there is that differential.
In relation to Teagasc, there is money for agricultural colleges. I do not want to revisit an old issue, but in 2001 and 2002 going into an election year - I might as well be facetious about it - I do not see it being provided. The great leaders of Teagasc would say that would never enter their minds. We had major debates on a previous ESRI report. I hope adequate funding is provided to ensure necessary improvements, to enable the colleges provide additional courses and that we are not revisited by the scenario of some of those colleges being threatened with closure. Some of them are pivotal and have expanded to provide courses in new areas. Now that the rural development dimension is so important and so fundamental, they should be given an opportunity to participate. I hope the future of centres like Multyfarnham will be secured and that we will not have a repeat of the previous problems. From the Department's information gathering exercises, can the Minister say what the numbers will be for the coming September. Will advertising be undertaken not just by the colleges but by the Department? I realise we do not want the two to be at cross-purposes or for there to be competition between the Department and the agricultural colleges in this regard.
Livestock breeding is a very important area, but the increase for livestock improvement, at £19,000 as far as I can see from the outturn, is minuscule. That is an area that could do with more.
There are still significant expenditures by the Department on brucellosis and TB. What is the latest outlook? Can the Minister give any view on current figures and trends? Given last year's setback, how optimistic is he? Have we got over that reverse, and what is the Minister's prognosis, given that those diseases do not work on exact lines? What system is in place for giving aid towards the collection of fallen animals? It is very important that aid be given in that area.
Like Deputy Dukes, I did not notice any money under the C5 heading for sheep tagging schemes. Deputy Connaughton is more of an expert on this than anybody else, so I will leave that area to him. However, we have introduced legislation in respect of livestock producers who have been in that business for many years. What stage have discussions reached on implementing that legislation? There should be a practical approach to that. From what I hear, some of the measures proposed would put everybody out of business, including people who have worked all their lives in the area. Those people are very eager to do the various tasks, meet standards and adhere to regulations. However, some of the regulations are giving rise to concern among ordinary people. I hope a practical and sensible approach will be taken to their concerns which have been eloquently expressed. I hope the approach to it will be bipartisan and reasonable.
How many local authorities are funded to enable them to provide a full inspection and certification service to domestic abattoirs so as to ensure that meat is certified for consumption on the domestic market? Has there been any increase in that provision to local authorities for the current year in view of the circumstances? When this first came before the House, I pointed out that the moneys provided at that time were totally inadequate to deal with the backlog of farmers who had applied and who had still not been dealt with. At that time it was 600 or 700. Is the £3 million provided in the Estimate intended to deal with the number of applicants after the reintroduction of the scheme? There is an extra heading there as well. It is a great scheme. I know the Minister had to go to the Commission, that much work was involved and that it was difficult to get funding. However, the scheme seems to be bogged down in bureaucracy. I hate to use that word and I do not use it lightly. I used it to one of the Minister's officials one day and he asked me to use any word but that, but I had to tell him that I was only reflecting the views of farmers.
I know about bureaucracy because of my background in another area of professional expertise that some people say is bogged down in the language of another time. I appreciate the difficulty. I spoke to a young farmer the other night in connection with that. There is a tardiness about paying out funds under those schemes and I often feel people are looking for an excuse to slow down payments. Installation aid should be free flowing if a farmer qualifies and has the various certificates. If the transfer is in place, installation aid should be free flowing. The Department's priority should be to find ways to smooth it through, to get funds to people as quickly as possible, to iron out difficulties in connection with the early retirement scheme or the installation aid scheme. The problem is the huge amount of bureaucracy. The forms are difficult to complete and they present an obstacle. When that obstacle has been overcome after much teasing out and evaluation and the forms are forwarded to the Department, there is no immediate response. Money is critical at that point, and that is why it is important to smooth out the process.
On markets, the Egyptian market is obviously critical. I wish the Minister well in his efforts to reopen that market and I endorse what my colleague, Deputy Dukes said. I will always remember a big meeting on the Naas Road when I thought the Minister would fly out that night and reopen the market. I supported the then Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, and told the truth and I did not lose many farmer's votes. We should not engage in any cynical ploys or politics in this game. It is difficult to get markets. The Minister is obviously working hard to get them and I applaud his efforts. However, I will not say to the farming community at any meeting that the Minister, Deputy Walsh, has failed. I hope that whenever the Deputy is in that position——
Or the Minister, Deputy Cowen.
Deputy Cowen, who lives only down the road from me, has not got on a plane to go to any of those places. I will not make a big issue of that. I will be truthful with the farmers. This is done at technical level, the Minister then smoothes out, no doubt in a diplomatic way, any little issue that has to be sorted out. That is what I tell the farmers. Should the Minister be in Opposition again I hope he will remember the words I uttered here because it is time to stop playing politics. Agriculture is not an area in which to play politics, rather it is an area about which we have to be serious. The small family farm holding is under severe threat. It is time to come together in some major forum where the views of the small farmers are reflected, to debate the future of agriculture. Many organisations reflect the views of the large commercial farmers and they do it very well but I have great faith in the small farmers, those with 60, 70, or 80 acres.
Deputy Dukes is correct about the early retirement scheme. Is there any way in which payments under the farm retirement scheme can be indexed upwards because retired farmers are losing out significantly? Most would qualify in their own right for a contributory pension, especially those who have paid up since 1986. They now find that the more the pension is increased from the Exchequer, the more they lose on the other side. In the final analysis they are no better off. They are losing all the time. They will not ever get the increase of £10, about which the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, Deputy Ahern, makes great play. That is for contributory pensioners.
It is no wonder the Minister was defeated.
I will not go into that. In relation to REPS I have yet to hear of a successful appeal in this area. The quicker the Agriculture Appeals Office is up and running the better. We are not holding it up. I think the Committee Stage of the Bill will be debated soon.
I have raised questions about Leader+. Valuation groups are studying various aspects of it, but the Minister should request them to accelerate their evaluation.
I tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister in the Dáil yesterday about Athlone laboratory and it appears there are some difficulties there which should be ironed out quickly. The laboratory was re-opened in January 2000. In regard to completing the works, the Minister said he is working furiously with the Office of Public Works. I am only paraphrasing the Minister's reply, the drift of which is that he is leaving no stone unturned. I come from that area and I request that whatever work needs to be done in this vital facility for farmers in the midlands be completed but if the staff are unhappy about the level of accommodation that issue will have to be ironed out. If this work is not completed after 18 months, questions have to be asked. Will the Minister ensure that staff concerns are taken into account, that the outstanding works are carried out and that proposals for other essential work on the laboratory are implemented? I ask the Minister to contact Office of Public Works in the morning to ensure that the work is done.
I compliment the Minister on bringing forward the Estimate. We had a good debate on the horse and greyhound industry. Apart from what Deputy Dukes pointed out as a major lacuna in the Bill I welcome it and so do the people I represent. I hope the small players in the racing industry, especially in the national hunt area, get their due rewards and that everything does not go to the multi-millionaires at the top of the industry. I strongly support the small players in the horse industry in the midlands who play an important role in the thoroughbred and non-thoroughbred areas.
I hope to see a comprehensive report on the measures concerning foot and mouth disease and on the deficiencies or irregularities which the Minister indicated are being investigated. I ask also for the establishment of a major forum to consider the future of agriculture, how it will be financed and how we will react to the new WTO round. That round will determine whether a number of our farmers have any future in the industry.
I suggest we that we suspend briefly to discuss when this debate can be resumed because we are due to have a short meeting of the joint committee at 6.30 p.m.
I suggest we continue and finish this Estimate at about 7 p.m. What is the Minister's view?
Is the Chairman saying this committee room is required at 6.30 p.m.?
It is required at 6.30 p.m. for a meeting of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine.
It will be an important meeting concerning travel proposals.
That is important, but if it is agreeable to members we can continue discussing the Estimate.
I propose we continue and have our meeting on travel next week.
A meeting of the select committee is scheduled for next week when there will be a discussion on the Estimate for the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources.
Can we continue with this debate and complete it?
At what time do members want to finish?
By 7 p.m., if possible.
I will not delay the committee with my contribution as, like myself, Deputies Connaughton and Sheehan have been here from the start and want to speak.
I welcome the Estimate. We are all aware that agriculture has gone through a difficult time in recent years, particularly in recent months. There was a crisis in 1995 with BSE, another crisis in 2000 and the last two months have been difficult for the beef sector. Consumption fell throughout Europe by 30%. This was a disaster for the beef industry. The negotiations that took place in Brussels, which included the purchase for destruction scheme, were welcome. I thank the Minister and his officials who negotiated the scheme. Ireland was one of the countries that used it. The inclusion of 275,000 surplus animals, with a purchase value of £200 million, was more than welcome. One does not realise the effect of the purchase for destruction scheme until one sends off a lorry load of cattle, as I did last Monday morning. They were the finest of cattle that had to be sent off under the scheme, but there was no other option. Most of them were over three years old while some were nearly four. Having spoken to the factory agent, I learned that the outcome for this type of cattle is worrying. The outcome will not be great as many of the markets that the slaughter houses are considering are for cattle under 24 or 30 months. In County Meath we start to fatten cattle at 24 months up to 36 months and over 40. I am sure something similar happens in other counties, including Deputy Dukes's. I do not know what the future holds for this type of animal.
I agree with Deputy Penrose's comments about rearing non-beef animals for which there is no future. Consideration should be given to introducing a destruction scheme for this type of calf because Holstein animals are not wanted. I am talking about animals of 36 months. It would take five years to fatten some of them and even then they would not be fattened. Without the introduction of the destruction scheme, farmers would have been in dire straits.
Intervention for steer beef is expected to resume in July. Does the Minister have any idea of the price or the weight requirements that will be requested?
We all welcome the reopening of some of our markets, particularly Lebanon which took 60,000 cattle annually and also the Spanish, Italian and Russian markets. After the first scare of an outbreak of BSE the Minister did marvellous work in opening up many markets. Unfortunately, with the outbreak of BSE and the foot and mouth crisis, we lost many of them and it is great some of them are now being reopened. As others said, the big market is Egypt. Every effort is being made at the highest level and by technical experts to have it reopened. I am sure that should it prove necessary for the Minister or the Minister for Foreign Affairs to visit the country, they will do so. I appeal to the Minister to board the first plane if he thinks it is necessary to do so.
The outbreak of foot and mouth disease has been another serious crisis. Like previous speakers, I compliment the Minister, his officials and the various bodies on the marvellous work done in this area. It was a credit to everybody. Severe restrictions were imposed on the farming community. Unfortunately this had to be done in the interests of agriculture and the future of the country. If the disease had become rampant here, not only farming but every sector would have been severely affected. It is marvellous that marts will reopen next Monday. Some of the tough measures that had to be implemented are being relaxed. I hope more of them will be relaxed as soon as possible because some have been difficult to cope with, although we recognise they were all necessary.
REPS and the early retirement scheme are two popular schemes. I am glad that more money has been put into this area. Given that many farmers want to retire, the early retirement scheme is popular. I thoroughly agree with everything Deputy Penrose said about it. REPS is also popular. It has been part and parcel of the income of many of our farmers.
Much money has been put into food research. Such investment is vital as we are solely dependent on the export of our products. I will not talk about the horse and greyhound industry because we discussed it when we dealt with the Bill which the Minister recently brought before the Dáil.
The Minister is a good horsey man.
He is. The Deputy is not too bad himself. Between the dogs and the horses the Minister and the Deputy are two fair boys.
I would not be able to follow the Minister. He has a State car and driver while I get bogged down.
The Leader programmes have been popular across every county and we know of the great work done under it. More than £20 million will be provided under the programmes this year. Deputy Dukes asked when the Leader+ programme will commence as it is vital for many rural organisations. There is much talk of the needs of rural Ireland. I had a meeting last Saturday morning in my part of my constituency, the poor end of County Meath, about which no one wants to know.
Poor old Johnny.
My great friend from County Westmeath, Deputy Penrose, knows that it stretches into part of County Westmeath and part of Deputy Crawford's constituency in County Cavan. Years ago the Minister visited places like Crossakiel to meet beef producers but it has become very poor since. With depopulation and so forth, initiatives such as the Leader programme are helping to keep some rural areas alive. It is vital that the programme continues. I thank the Minister for a job well done in all those areas. I know he will continue to work for the betterment of Irish agriculture and farmers.
I acknowledge that the foot and mouth disease crisis was well handled. We are extraordinarily lucky that we do not have to grapple with this dreaded disease and I hope it will be kept out. However, I wish to raise a number of other points, most of which relate to the livestock trade and marketing in general. The first is the change in the special purchase scheme. I assume the cows, heifers and bulls will have to be tested for BSE, but has a price been agreed? I agree with Deputy Brady that market conditions would be much worse if the destruction scheme had not been introduced. However, the scheme did not stop the factories from pulling the price in recent weeks. I ask the Minister to indicate what price levels can be expected from 1 July.
I hope I am wrong but I do not share the Minister's view regarding the market for beef for the rest of the year. He said it was difficult, but it will be extraordinarily difficult unless a number of things happen. One starts next Monday morning. I compliment the Minister and the special committee on foot and mouth disease on relaxing the rules governing the permit system. This was necessary to allow the livestock marts to reopen. However, next Monday will be hugely important for the livestock trade throughout Ireland. I do not know how many marts will reopen - this is not a political point because whoever was Minister would have the same difficulty - but some dealers and mart managers do not have a clue about what is expected of them.
Cattle will be allowed into marts next Monday morning. It is one thing getting cattle into a mart, but it is another getting people to buy them. I ask the Minister to explain the position regarding the registration of dealers. He spearheaded a Bill in the House in this area and received much support from all sides for it. However, up to now, there has been no registration of dealers. From next Monday morning, dealers will be back in operation - I am referring to bona fide dealers. I do not fly a flag for anybody and hope the rogue dealers will face the full rigours of the law. However, the great patchwork that makes up the livestock sales industry depends to a large degree on agents and dealers being able to buy cattle and dispose of them.
There will be no exports unless dealers can buy live cattle at marts. An academic debate is taking place at a certain level - it does not include the Minister - that it is fundamentally wrong for farmers to sell live cattle and that it should be a womb to tomb operation. The idea is that a farmer rears an animal, breeds it and then sells it directly to a factory. This would be fine in an ideal world, but as a result of foot and mouth disease, I have heard squeaks from people who should know more about this matter. Their view is that there must be competition among meat factories and if there are export outlets in Spain, Italy and I hope many other places, the conditions should be the same as if people were dealing in computers. If there is a market and we have a product to sell, given that Ireland is a member of the European Union, we should be allowed to trade.
I hope this view will not take hold because huge vested interests are involved and if they had their way, there would be no live shipments of cattle. This would be a horrendous development in a country that must export eight out of every ten animals. I ask the Minister to address this aspect and give the committee an assurance that those who traded properly before the outbreak of foot and mouth disease will be allowed to carry out their normal duties next Monday morning. If an importer in Italy wanted 2,000 cattle in a fortnight, traditionally the animals would have been purchased at 50 marts in the preceding ten days. They must be collected at various points, brought to Rosslare and transported abroad. I ask the Minister to give an undertaking that dealers will not be impeded to any great degree in terms of how they operated previously. Dealers have been in contact with the Department about this matter recently and will continue to contact it up to Monday morning because it is hugely important that they are not unnecessarily impeded.
I understood the first instalment of the ewe premium scheme would be paid soon. However, there is a rumour that it will not be paid until next October. This is difficult to understand. The Minister might say that the sheep trade was never as good and I agree it is the best it has been for a long time. However, he must remember that many late lamb producers have not sold any lambs yet. They have received nothing and depend on the ewe premium to pay for fertiliser and nitrogen, etc. I ask the Minister to explain the rationale behind this move.
Will the Minister examine the technical aspects of animal diseases? I have noticed that many new rules are being implemented, for example, regarding full round testing for TB. Up to now, if there was an inconclusive result on one animal, the farmer got the cards back for all the other animals and was allowed to sell them while the animal with the inconclusive test result was retested or slaughtered. However, the position now is that if an adjoining farm has the disease, the cards are not returned to the farmer. It is a community matter, not an individual one. I ask the Minister to comment on this issue because it is creating much trouble regarding inconclusive reactor animals. I spoke to ERAD about this matter, but it did not take much notice of what I said. However, it should be highlighted because I do not understand how the new method will have any effect in terms of preventing the spread of TB.
Deputy Penrose and others mentioned bureaucracy. It will be a very difficult year. For example, regarding the Egyptian trade, the best report I have is that unless there is a dramatic downturn in Ireland's BSE figures, it will not be reopened. This means there will be no home for thousands of Irish cattle. The Minister must do everything he can to ensure animals can be exported dead or alive - even if it means sending them out by helicopter. There will be no room for these animals if the outlets are not reopened.
I do not wish to repeat the points made by other members but it has been a crucial few months for agriculture and the country as a whole. Only the week before an outbreak of foot and mouth disease was confirmed in County Louth Bord Bia representatives appeared before this committee. It was breathtaking to listen to what they thought would happen if foot and mouth disease came to this country. It said it would be devastating and that the country would go back 100 years. I am not saying this because I am a member of the same party as the Minister, but the people should appreciate what the Minister and his officials have done not only for the farmers but for the country. They did an excellent job in tough circumstances. Regardless of the rogue dealers Deputy Dukes mentioned, if foot and disease returns to this country, we will be well prepared for it, thanks to the Minister and his officials. I congratulate all involved.
As regards the opening of the Lebanese markets for live cattle, I presume we were also lobbied. I did not know, until I heard Deputy Dukes say so today, that the Minister made a statement yesterday about shipments of live cattle. Concern was expressed in that regard. The Spanish and Italian markets have been opened, but the Egyptian market is the main one. Perhaps Deputy Connaughton has the inside track on this issue or, perhaps, he is fooling us, but he seems to think things are not good in terms of the Egyptian market. I am disappointed to hear that. However, I am sure the Minister will give this committee all the information at his disposal. I understand from the Minister's speech that both he and the top officials in his Department are having talks with the Egyptians. I hope something good will come from that.
We are too strict when farmers make minor mistakes under the REP scheme, the early retirement scheme or other schemes. When we raised this issue a number of months ago, the Minister said he would examine it. I am referring to small farmers as I do not represent many big farmers in my constituency. I leave that to other representatives. Small farmers have had a tough year. Some of the fines are excessive. One good farmer, for example, was fined because he could not get an agricultural contractor to cut his hedges as the land was too wet. I raised that matter with the Department, but a response was not forthcoming. That is silly. We are making the scheme complicated for big and small farmers. I presume other Deputies have also been told that small farmers' wives are like full-time secretaries. I ask the Minister to do something to alleviate the minor niggling problems which are upsetting farmers.
I am sure Deputy Sheehan will want to compliment the Minister, so I will allow him to speak.
I compliment my constituency colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, on the magnificent way he handled the foot and mouth disease crisis.
I thank the Deputy.
However, he got great assistance from Ms Bríd Rodgers, the Northern Ireland Minister for Agriculture, who was out every morning ensuring the Border areas were disinfected. Her photograph appeared in the newspapers. Our Minister was on the southern side of the Border, while Bríd Rodgers was on the northern side and between the two of them, they did a great job.
The Minister said the future of agriculture looks bright. Does he agree that our young farmers are becoming disillusioned and are leaving agriculture in droves? I do not like the alarming decline in the number of young people staying in agriculture. It is estimated in the 2010 programme that there might be between 30,000 and 40,000 farmers left in the country. Will the Minister to tell us what he can do to counteract that decline in the number of young farmers entering the industry?
There was a reduction of 30% in beef consumption across the EU in the last two months of 2000. Can the Minister confirm or deny if this has levelled out or is it still falling? Will the purchase for destruction scheme terminate on 1 July and will we then go back to commercial markets for our cattle?
As regards grants under the REP scheme, 20 years ago we showered grants on our farmers for land reclamation, the removal of fences, the draining of land, the clearance of scrub, etc. However, that has all gone now. We are urging farmers to restore the fences and the water courses and to clean up the hedges under the REP scheme. Do I take it that land reclamation grants will no longer be available to farmers? We spent 20 years improving land reclamation grants and our farmers' land and we are now doing the opposite.
In November, December, January and February reactor cattle were sold for a pittance and the Minister promised compensation to those farmers caught in that situation. I know farmers in our constituency who sold young reactor cattle to the factories and who got only 21p per pound. Some of them made only 19p and 20p per pound, which was shocking. The Minister promised the IFA he would compensate the farmers who had to sell the young cattle to comply with the bovine TB regulations, but they were not compensated. They have come to my clinic and I am sure they have gone to the Minister's clinic. They are not happy with me or with the Minister.
Prior to the last general election - it affected my poll considerably in the constituency——
The Deputy did not do too badly.
——the Minister promised grants to the small abattoirs and butchers throughout the constituency to improve their killing capacities. I have it in writing from the Minister, but nothing has been done to help those small abattoirs and butchers in the constituency or throughout the country.
I agree that the farm retirement pensions should be index-linked in the same way as pensions from the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. When old age contributory pensions and retirement pensions are paid to people, money is immediately deducted from their European pensions. These people are losing out.
The Minister stated that market prospects were shaken by the detection of foot and mouth disease in the UK. However, he said he was extremely pleased to announce in recent weeks a successful conclusion with the Lebanese authorities. Has any shipment of cattle gone to the Lebanon since this market resumed? The Minister said that following rapidly on that success he was endeavouring to re-open the Spanish, Italian and other markets for younger animals but this is news to me. I know of a Spanish cattle importer who came to County Cork three weeks ago seeking 12,000 young cattle. Unfortunately, he was unable to get them because the Department did not give him the green light to proceed. There and then, he went to Germany to buy the cattle. That means the sale of 12,000 cattle was lost to Irish farmers. The Minister should be more positive and if there are any impediments to the export of our cattle they should be removed immediately.
The Minister stated that re-opening the important Egyptian market has been a priority but that is surely a presumption. A high-powered delegation from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development went to Egypt recently and a high-powered Egyptian delegation will be coming to Ireland soon. However, this could go on, back and forth, for the next nine months without any resumption of trade. I would advise the Minister to take a trip to Cairo.
It is the wrong constituency.
If the Deputy minds the shop, I will go.
The Minister should bring Deputy Jim O'Keeffe with him.
When the Minister is finished in Cairo he should visit President Gadaffi in Tripoli or wherever he can be found - perhaps in a tent or in a hut in the desert. The Minister should contact him to re-open the Libyan market along with the Egyptian market. As Deputy Connaughton said, the Minister should not accept any impediments to the export of live cattle. The meat factories need competition, which is the life of trade, and without it the factories will not pay the proper price to farmers. Live exports should be resumed as quickly as possible. Why will the Minister not include the £1,000 compensation that was given to farmers in the west Cork area for walkers and tourists going through their lands, as part of the new REPS plan? The Minister gave them £1,000 under the old REP scheme. When one gives the farmer a bad habit he will look for the continuation of it. Farmers have contributed to the success of the tourism industry in the area by giving permission to walkers to go through their land and commonages, for which they received the sum of £1,000. It was only a pittance but it should be restored to them.
I see that up to 2006 the Leader II programme will be delivered in two ways: the new EU initiative Leader under the heading M.6; and a separate Leader-type programme in the national development plan, called the area-based rural initiative, under the heading M.11. I am seeking further clarification from the Minister on those two headings, M.6 and M.11. The Minister has stated that under the new Leader programme he will spend £8 million in 2001 out of a total of £117 million for the five-year period. That will leave the Minister with £109 million to be spent on the new REP scheme for the next five years, or £22 million per year, whereas he will only spend £8 million this year. The Minister should be generous to the people who will participate in that scheme, by getting that £22 million out as quickly as possible for the next five years.
I am sorry I did not have more time to query the Minister further but I hope to do so at a later date. I wish the Minister good luck in his negotiations with the Egyptian authorities and he should not forget his friend, President Gadaffi, in Tripoli.
I call on Deputy Crawford. We have to be out of the room at 7.15 p.m. so we have only ten minutes left, and the Minister has to reply.
On a point of order, has the general election been called? Is the campaign on in west Cork?
I do not know what is going on.
I will be quick because some of the issues I had intended to cover have already been dealt with, although I wish to revert to the purchase for destruction scheme. The Minister said he has taken measures to encourage commercial sales. In other words, the Minister has cut back on the intake of cattle at the factories. He should use the last couple of weeks of that scheme to take up as many of the over 30 months old cattle as possible. The Minister introduced the scheme to ensure that up to 20,000 cattle per week would be bought into it but the figure is more like 3,000 or a little over that at present. If those cattle are not taken up in the next couple of weeks they will damage the overall market and price for the rest of the year. I have already said that in the Dáil but it cannot be over emphasised.
I wonder if the Department has examined the idea of a calf destruct scheme. As someone who is involved in farming, I find it hard to see 30-month old animals that have been fed and nurtured being destroyed. While nobody likes to see a calf destruct scheme either, it would make much more sense, if at all possible.
On a housekeeping issue, I met the local IFA group in Monaghan recently and they say the situation regarding permits from Bandon is absolutely impossible. Some people have been waiting a couple of weeks and this is just not on. Some of them had to make special arrangements with the district veterinary officer to move cattle in the hope that the position would be rectified.
The Minister has already been asked whether cattle have been shipped to the Lebanon, Spain, Italy or other markets. We welcome the Minister's efforts to get these markets re-opened but we need to see movement taking place.
The Minister also mentioned that he has had to buy up much of the meat and bonemeal supplies. Will he advise us how he has organised the storage of that material? Quite a few companies of which I am aware have sought the right to tender for the storage of these products. I would like to see some transparency in how that issue is dealt with because a great deal of money is being invested in that area.
I was involved for seven years in the precursor of Bord Bia. I acknowledge that the Minister has increased the board's budget by £3.5 million this year. I have spoken to my party colleagues about it and would suggest that in the present dire recession where it will take an enormous effort to increase the sales of quality animals in our European and other markets, the Minister should, if necessary, consider raising this amount. I can suggest a way to find the extra money. The Minister has not been able to get people out to introduce farm building and other grants. Therefore, there will not be a major cost in that sector for the rest of this year. It would be to our benefit if every possible effort was made to promote the livestock industry.
The other issue concerns purely a point of protocol. The Minister recently established the new greyhound body. However, once again we find that when we table questions we do not get any answers. I sought information on whether money was available to set up a greyhound track at Clones and my question was ruled out of order by the Ceann Comhairle. I see in the information given to us today that quite a deal of money has been provided under the sub-heads for a national agriculture and international show centre at Punchestown, so I hope that next year will see money being found for Clones greyhound track.
We all welcome our success in keeping foot and mouth disease out but there is no doubt there will be difficulties. I wish the Minister all the best in making sure every market is opened. Like my colleague, Deputy Penrose, I listened to a number of comments when the foot and mouth disease crisis began. There were assurances from the Minister, the spokesperson on foreign affairs and others that all one had to do to open a market was get on a plane and go out there. We knew then, and know now, it is not that easy. There needs to be a major international effort to ensure every pound of beef that can be sold is sold, not just in the interests of politics but in the national interest which is far more important.
I thank Deputies for their questions and comments and I ask the Minister to respond quickly because we have to vacate the room.
I thank each of the Deputies for their comments on Department officials, the Garda, the Army and a number of other agencies who responded swiftly and professionally to the threat of foot and mouth disease engulfing the country and causing severe hardship and economic difficulty. It is appropriate they be thanked for that. The point was made by Deputy Dukes and others that we should learn lessons from what happened and he is right. The Oireachtas has passed very tough legislation which is now being implemented. People have been apprehended and prosecutions will follow. The names of two factories were mentioned, one at Athleague and the other at Kildare. Investigations are ongoing there and the Garda is involved. Our attitude is extremely tough and in some areas people say we are being too hard, that we should relax a bit more.
We have to learn lessons while at the same time allowing the greatest degree of normalisation. While we are becoming increasingly optimistic that the virus is not active here, we know for sure that it is active in Britain. Regrettably there have been a number of outbreaks every day, including over the past few days in different areas. There is much interaction between Britain and Ireland and if the virus were to come in here we would have a huge weight of responsibility to ensure traceability and to keep it at bay. I am being very cautious and prudent in gradually allowing normality to recur, but we have to put the lessons learned into practice.
Deputy Dukes asked specifically about the future, the markets and intervention as did many Deputies. There will be intervention from 1 July, and in fact it exists at present. Germany, Spain and some other countries are using it. The price is about 82p to 84p per pound and we are getting perhaps 10p more than that. Regarding the destruct scheme, while we were all less than enthusiastic about good beef being burned, it kept the market price up when there was no other outlet. Consumption of beef had declined and our third country markets were cut off. As a market support measure, the destruct scheme kept prices at 90p to 92p. What we are trying to achieve now is to open markets. We have to have outlets when the destruct scheme ends on 1 July. There is not a big pull on the market in the summer months but from September on there will be a serious problem if further markets are not open and if there is no increase in the consumption of beef.
The main market is Egypt, which remains to be opened. I am doing everything possible to achieve that with regard to the advice of Bord Bia and our ambassador in Cairo. Their strong advice is that there is a perception problem with the image of beef due to BSE and compounded by foot and mouth disease. We all know that the latter does not affect food safety. To overcome this problem at a technical level Egypt's chief veterinary officer and his officials are coming here in a number of weeks and I hope we can have that market reopened. If that does not happen there will be downward pressure on prices which will probably be nearer to 70p per pound, 20p per pound less than at present. There is a very gloomy prospect ahead if we do not succeed.
It was asked if live cattle had gone to the Lebanon and I can confirm that a ship was loaded yesterday in Waterford. I assume that it sailed, though I cannot confirm that. Spain and Italy are open to younger cattle and calves, though there are some restrictions on both sides. If we were asked to import live cattle from other European countries we would be very slow to do so and would want strict conditions to apply. We realise what needs to be done and are doing all that we possibly can to make sure it happens.
Deputy Dukes also referred to Eurovet, a matter he raised with me in the Dáil a couple of weeks ago. I have asked officials in the Department to update me on that. There will be parliamentary questions on agriculture over the next few days providing an opportunity for me to elaborate on some of these matters. The Deputy also raised the question of an intervention agency outside the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. We are redesigning the structure of the Department into three pillars - for policy, payments and food safety and animal welfare.
It is increasingly difficult for farmers to attend a farming course and keep the farm going at the same time. There is not much help on farms these days. I have spoken to Teagasc about that before and, now that I am reminded of it, I will take it up again. People should be allowed do their farm practice on a neighbouring farm rather than go miles and miles away with no one at the home place to look after it. As we are talking about Teagasc, an ESRI report suggested that the numbers going for agricultural education could be accommodated in fewer colleges. I put £10 million into a fund to upgrade colleges and a good number of them are using it. Donal Creedon, former Secretary General at my Department, suggested in his report that there should be greater mainstreaming of education and that is being done. IT facilities have been provided to a number of the colleges and I have asked principals to ensure they put development programmes to me so we can provide the money for them. I regard agricultural colleges as important development centres in their regions. Though there are not as many sons and daughters going back to farms it does not say the facilities cannot be used for a whole range of other continuing education and developmental purposes.
On organic farming, that matter still has not been resolved with the three different groups but we are making some progress. The meetings were cancelled because of the foot and mouth disease crisis and that held it up a little.
The issue of food aid donations was raised. The major portion of these donations are implemented by the Department of Foreign Affairs and there has been a major increase in that area.
A number of Deputies referred to the Leader+ programme. We still must get final European Commission approval for that but it has gone through a number of the structures there. There is a fair amount of bureaucracy involved. I expect we will make some progress there in a few weeks.
It is no wonder Deputy Sheehan is good at addition because he tops the poll so often. He is absolutely right that there is only £8 million in the Estimate this year and £22 million on average for the next few years. That means that, because we have not received final approval from Brussels and because each of the projects must be approved, there is less than half a year involved this year. The principal teacher in Lissygriffin taught him well.
It was in Goleen, and I had to walk two miles through the fields to the national school.
Deputy Penrose referred to the 2010 report. In fact, we followed that up with an action programme and there are good guidelines under that. I am sure the Deputy received a copy of that.
I did, but I am not satisfied with it.
In that case we had better streamline it a little and sort it out to his satisfaction in so far as we can. On the foot and mouth disease crisis, the Deputy stated that we should have simulated exercises. We must give due credit to the veterinary section of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, and Dr. Gaynor, the chief veterinary surgeon, in particular. He had his contingency plan and manual and it was refreshed and upgraded in October last. We were extremely fortunate to have that contingency plan because that meant there was a national control centre in Agriculture House and local control centres, one in Cavan-Monaghan and one in Ballymascanlon. Thankfully the one in Deputy Crawford's area did not need to be used. It was situated in a local community centre and I visited it. They had everything there, including the IT database, and they were ready for action.
The Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation forgot it was there whenever he was giving out money.
Was there no Lotto grant for it? We sent a good many Lotto grants west this year. Deputy Sheehan will be happy to hear that I got as far as Skibbereen with the Lotto grants. We helped out the local rowing club, Skibbereen Dynamos and St. Gabriel's GAA Club.
Did he provide a grant for Paddy Collins's all-weather track?
That will come under the £8 million of Leader + funding. In any case, I have details on the trends and I will send them directly to the Deputy because the money is available.
On fallen animals, we are extending the provision to other types of animals. There was a temporary problem with the young farmer installation aid scheme but that has now been resolved. There was a little tardiness in that regard, as the Deputy said.
In fact, there was a overtime problem in that regard. We were flooded with applications for overtime from the people who did all this great work during the foot and mouth disease crisis. As a good number of the staff were sent to Ballymascanlon, various other areas and along the Border, we were stretched to the limit but we are trying to get that sorted out also. Deputy Sheehan's antennae are good and his clinics are working well because he was absolutely accurate in that regard.
I have been asked in my clinics also, about the early retirement scheme. I hear of two problems First, there is no provision for indexation. The second problem is that people hear me and others boasting about the great increases in social welfare and then these benefits are taken from them. I will pursue both of those matters. We are trying to promote this good scheme which allows for the development of a new generation of people in management.
I will make strong representations to the Office of Public Works again about that laboratory in Athlone. Deputy Johnny Brady asked about the outlook for three and four year old cattle. The outlook is poor in that regard. The 30 months stipulation is a big issue and we must get Teagasc to advise people to a great extent to opt for younger cattle.
On intervention and the markets, the case was made that whatever we do we must open up those markets and provide competition for the factories. Deputy Connaughton asked again about the marts and I have gone into that in some detail. We must see how the marts work from next Monday onwards and I will review the position after the first week of operations. There is no use in having them open unless they work.
One of the farming newspapers stated that the first instalment of the ewe premium would not be paid until October. That is not true. We will try to get that paid out as soon as we can. Even though, as Deputy Sheehan will acknowledge, we do not meet too many strays coming all the way from Kenmare as we did in the past when prices were bad because sheep prices are very good, some people have not been able to sell sheep, especially mountain sheep, because they are not ready yet. Therefore these people will be glad to receive the few bob under the first instalment.
Deputy Michael Collins spoke about the irritation caused by small mistakes, and he is correct. That is why I welcome the support of all the Deputies and the Opposition for the appeals Bill. We hope to have that enacted this term. It will ensure that people will be satisfied that they will get a good hearing. In addition, in Brussels they will look at the level of penalties also. What we need in that regard is that the penalty would fit the crime.
The on-farm investment schemes will go ahead and now we will be able to get the people out to approve the grants. That process was inhibited significantly over the past three months because of the foot and mouth disease crisis.
We will look again at the issue of small abattoirs in conjunction with Enterprise Ireland. Unfortunately the Department is not the grant paying agency concerned. As the committee will be aware, since before the last election I have been anxious to make sure that the abattoirs get upgraded.
I want the Minister to honour his pre-election pledges. They will come back to haunt him over the next 12 months if he does not deliver.
We will try to get the grant giving agency, Enterprise Ireland, to do its bit.
Deputy Crawford asked me to make sure over the next few weeks while the destruct scheme is in existence that as many of the eligible cattle as possible will be put forward for it because otherwise there will be an overhang which will affect the market.
A number of people, including Deputy Crawford, asked about the calf processing scheme. I have raised that matter on a number of occasions, both at the Council of Ministers and bilaterally with Commissioner Fischler. I said it would be as well to take those Holsteins bullocks, in particular, out of the system at an early stage rather than feeding them for a long time and then trying to get rid of them. The animal welfare people are totally opposed to doing so and we are unable to make a deal with them.
I got an additional £3.5 million for Bord Bia this year. If more money is required, I will get it. The board has not ever been needed more than it is at present. It will be needed especially between now and the end of the year to promote the further consumption of beef, the restoration of confidence in the consumption of beef and the reopening of the markets.
I think I addressed the issues raised. If there are any items which I have missed, I will communicate directly with the Deputies concerned. Deputies will have a further chance to raise issues at Question Time in the Dáil. I appreciate the way the committee facilitated the completion of the examination of this Estimate this afternoon.