I wish to welcome the Minister for the Marine and his staff.
Vote 30—Marine (Supplementary Estimate).
Thank you for your welcome. I realise the time available to me is short. Before I comment on the detail of the Supplementary Estimate, I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Minister of State at the Department of the Marine who in the ordinary way would be present today. Deputy G. O'Sullivan is a loyal, hard working and decent member of our partnership Government. He is not with us today because he is in hospital on the road to recovery. I know that you and all the committee Members will join me in an expression of support to Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan and his family at this difficult time.
Deputies already have a copy of the Supplementary Estimate and will have received a briefing note from the Department of the Marine in relation to what is proposed. The Supplementary Estimate is for a token amount of £1,000 but this figure conceals some significant alterations in allocations within the Vote. Increases in spending on State harbours, the Salmon Research Agency and An Bord Iascaigh Mhara are proposed and I would like to deal with these in turn.
Subhead D.2 deals with State harbours. Major advances have been made in transport links on the Irish Sea. Dun Laoghaire harbour is in the vanguard of these changes and the Department of the Marine will be facilitating further progress. The Supplementary Estimate seeks to transfer a figure of £820,000 into the State harbours subhead of the Marine Vote. There are four important components to this additional sum and these have been noted in the briefing notes supplied to Deputies. The sum covers the costs of the new sewerage scheme, improvements to the Carlisle pier, planning and design work in connection with the development of the harbour and site investigation issues.
This is an exciting time at Dún Laoghaire. The harbour has witnessed in 1993 the introduction of the country's first high speed ferry service with Stena Sealink's operation. This has contributed in no small way to a growth in traffic through the ferry port. The harbour is looking forward to the introduction of Stena Sealink's new high speed service announced in July this year and scheduled to begin operations early in 1995. Sea travel on the Irish Sea is expected to be transformed by what will be the world's largest high speed passenger and freight ferry. The ferry will be capable of crossing to Hollyhead in one and a half hours. The coming into operation of this, the first vessel of its type, will be a major boost to the central Irish Sea corridor and will bring significant benefits in terms of trade and tourism. It will secure the position of Dún Laoghaire as a premier ferry port.
I have recently appointed a multi-disciplinary team of consultants to advance the design of the new ferry terminal complex and facilities to accommodate the new high speed service at Dún Laoghaire harbour. In view of the importance of this project to the harbour and borough of Dún Laoghaire I have instructed the team to consult with harbour users and other interested parties in preparing the detailed design of facilities. The design brief for the terminal requires that great care be taken in building a civic area design. The scheme will be submitted for planning permission to Dún Laoghaire before the end of the year. An environmental impact statement will be prepared and published. It will examine scheme impacts with particular regard to likely visual, amenity, traffic noise and marine aspects. I am keen that the consultative process will be open and thorough. This work is consistent with the advancement of the Dún Laoghaire Harbour Development Plan published in April 1992.
In all of this, we have not lost sight of the tremendous potential identified in the development plan for the development of the harbour's recreational amenity potential. As soon as the site investigation is processed and considered, it will be possible to advance plans for the installation of marina facilities and other associated improvements for the water-front economy. Under subhead F.2. — the Salmon Research Agency—it is proposed to allocate additional funding of £175,000 to the agency to enable it to continue its national research programme for salmon and sea trout and to expand a range of programmes through 1994. The agency is a centre of excellence for salmonoid research and the demands on it have grown of late. The funding will particularly cover the agency's efforts in connection with the sea trout decline. Programmes will be aimed, for example, at brood stock enhancement and the restocking and surveys of spawning stock. In addition, the agency will see the expansion and intensification of programmes relating to the development of novel species for the aquaculture industry. This will assist fish farmers to diversify production and help to access new markets with consequent economic and employment benefits. With its long record in sea trout research, the agency is making a valuable contribution to the consideration of sea trout stocks following their drastic decline in recent years. This work is of national importance and must continue.
The sea fish industry is an important contributor to the national economy and is of vital importance to the social and economic development of coastal regions, especially those of the underdeveloped south-west, west and north-west regions. In recent years, aquaculture has become increasingly important in these areas. The aquaculture industry remains on a strong growth trend and the industry now accounts for £40 million in production. There are now over 2,700 full and part-time jobs in the sector with indirect employment gains in related services industries. This represents more than a fivefold increase in employment since 1982. These jobs are widely distributed throughout the country, especially in the maritime counties on the west and south-west coasts. The Supplementary Estimate seeks to facilitate this trend and the additional £500,000 for BIM will directly support the board's efforts in connection with aquaculture job creation. The shell fish sector is a particular target and I am fully confident that we will get results.
These are the upward adjustments proposed and I hope the committee considers them worth while. The offsetting provisions have been outlined to the committee and briefing notes supplied and I now look forward to whatever discussions may arise.
I am pleased to hear that the Minister of State at the Department of the Marine, Deputy O'Sullivan, is making a good recovery. I join with the Minister in sending him our good wishes and look forward to seeing him back shortly.
We will convey that formally from the committee.
There is a little juggling of figures in the Supplementary Estimate. I see savings made and extra expenditure in some areas. I totally support whatever funds are being spent on the development of Dún Laoghaire harbour. Some people may feel we are acting in a parochial fashion because both the Minister and I are from that constituency. We regard Dún Laoghaire harbour as one of the major gateways to this country. If the traffic coming through Dún Laoghaire harbour increases, then we are contributing in a major way to the overall economy. It should not be looked at as a local issue; this is a national issue.
Expenditure made on this harbour is vitally important, particularly for the overall development of tourism in this country. I fully support whatever additional funds are needed to put in place the worthwhile developments needed at that location. The Minister said at a function I attended earlier today that Dún Laoghaire harbour is jumping from the 19th to the 21st century. That is true. There was a total neglect of the area for far too long. It has come to my attention that, due to the fairly dramatic reduction in the numbers employed there, there is an enormous amount of overtime being worked by the limited number of staff looking after the maintenance of the harbour. The latest figures I have indicate that up to the end of October, 25,000 hours of overtime had been worked by a reasonably small number of staff. At a time when there are approximately 300,000 people unemployed, I ask the Minister to consider employing part-time people or perhaps persons on a contract basis so we can offer more employment in the area. I can appreciate somebody on a low income welcoming a few hours overtime—nobody would object to that —but it appears to me that the number of hours being asked of the staff there is excessive. We could spread the bread a little further by employing additional staff in the area of maintenance and the servicing of ramps for the ferries. I ask him to look at that issue and see to it that the numbers employed are brought up to a reasonable figure so that the levels of overtime can be reduced.
I also ask him to look at the west pier area, which is in a disgraceful condition. A reasonably low sum of money could be spent to make it safe for people to walk on; it is a valuable amenity. As the Minister is aware—I am sure he has walked on it on many occasions—it could do with some resurfacing.
In relation to subhead F.2 — the Salmon Research Agency—I fully support this research in the marine area. We have had far too little of it for too long. I am a little surprised that subhead F.1, which shows a saving of £149,000 and also refers to marine research and development, is not being used this year when we are allocating an additional £175,000 to the Salmon Research Agency. Perhaps the Minister and the Government should review the area of research and development. Why do we need all of these separate bodies carrying out research in the marine area? Surely if they came under one roof and one institute, it could be far more beneficial.
The ongoing dispute and arguments between various sectors in the fishing industry, particularly in the recreational area, is of grave concern to most people. The sniping and the knocking of the aquaculture field concerns me. I do not see any conflict in the development of a sound aquaculture industry providing much needed jobs in remote areas where they are scarce. I note that the additional moneys given to BIM in this Supplementary Estimate are mainly in the area of aquaculture. Maybe a bad PR campaign has been conducted, but there is a feeling among those involved in recreational fishing that aquaculture is destroying that aspect of fishing, which in turn is damaging the Irish economy from a tourism point of view. I have asked a number of parliamentary questions on this matter and I am continually told, and have to accept, that the scientific evidence does not show that that is the reason for the disappearance of the sea trout or salmon from our rivers.
I, and I am sure the Minister, receives a great deal of correspondence from concerned fisherpeople who accuse those involved in aquaculture of causing problems in rivers and estuaries and blame their activities for the absence of sea trout. I understand the value of a salmon caught on the rod is worth approximately £600 per fish, a substantial amount of money for the economy. That £600 is the added-value in the tourism area. Salmon caught by drift-nets or otherwise is only worth the value of the fish because of the development of the aquaculture sector and salmon fish farms. There should not be a conflict between recreational fishing and the development of an aquacultural industry.
I am aware that a special committee is dealing with this, but the Department of the Marine, through whatever agency, should arrange a forum to enable those in the industry who are concerned about these issues to outline the fears expressed in letters to newspapers, to elected representatives, in statements and speeches. We must thrash out this issue so people can see there is no conflict between the development of the aquaculture industry and the continuation of the sound and healthy recreational side to fishing which is essential to our tourism industry.
I appreciate Deputy Barrett's continued support for the Dún Laoghaire development. Although I am the Minister for the Marine, I have also been a Deputy for the constituency for a number of years. Deputy Barrett has also served that constituency honourably and well for many years and he has been supportive of this and other projects.
The difficulty with Dún Laoghaire is that many proposals have been put forward but for various reasons they have not been supported and in some cases have been obstructed, although others might have a different view. Apart from other considerations, this new development, and the continuing development until 1995 when the high speed Stena becomes a reality, will be a huge psychological lift for the community of Dún Laoghaire. There will be spin-off effects from that to the hinterland and to places like the pavilion site which has been derelict for years. The latter has been the subject of so many schemes that it is difficult to enumerate them. Dún Laoghaire harbour development will be a psychological lift for the community and I am grateful to Deputy Barrett for his consistent support of it.
As I said this afternoon at the opening of the refurbished Carlisle Pier, this monument indicates that we are jumping from the 19th to the 21st century and missing the 20th century. Those facilities should have been in place years ago. This is the first sight people get of Ireland when they came into the harbour, one of the gateways to Ireland. There were no facilities, not even a cup of hot tea and people were herded in and out — if I might respectfully suggest — like cattle. It was an unfortunate first sight of our green land.
It is interesting to note that 100,000 people will pass through Dún Laoghaire this Christmas. While it is all right for them to pass through we must try to retain some of them in the excellent bed and breakfast establishments and outstanding first class hotels which are among the best in Ireland, in the interest of the local economy.
I am aware of the overtime mentioned by Deputy Barrett. Some 68 people are employed there and the reason for the increase in overtime is because the facilities have been updated over the past 12 months at a speed which left many people breathless. In this regard, I wish to pay tribute to the interim harbour board and officials from the Department of the Marine whose work is excellent. They have done a great amount of work in a short period. That is the reason for the overtime.
I take Deputy Barrett's point that with the new development there will be an increase in employment and, consequently, a reduction in the overtime. I am sure the 68 employees will not be happy that their overtime may be reduced. Deputy Barrett raised a social question and it must be addressed in that context. I hope more people will be employed in due course.
Deputy Barrett mentioned the west pier which is an extraordinary place. The east pier is the furthest pier out of town. The dam, known in the area as "the gut", has been covered by a thick carpet of grass for many years. It is unsightly but user friendly and I often wonder whether we should leave it as it is or lift the carpet of greenery and replace it with some fashionable paving. It is a matter of choice. Although I am inclined to bring it into the 21st century and make it nicer to walk on, it has a friendly rather than a clean appearance. There is a philosophical conflict in regard to whether it should be left as a field track on the west pier, or cover the area with modern paving. I have given this matter considerable thought and I will decide following discussions with the 30 organisations which are being consulted in regard to the proposed Dún Laoghaire plan for the high speed Stena. In addition to other questions being examined, it is something which might be addressed by the interim harbour board and the consultants.
On the question of aquaculture research and development, we have the Marine Institute and the FRC. I do not believe there is duplication in terms of research or human resources. The 1994 salmon research programme will be settled in consultation with the Marine Institute, the FRC and the Central Fisheries Board. I am glad to be able to tell the Deputy that Dr. Peter Heffernan has been appointed chief executive of the Marine Institute. Developments will move in the direction envisaged by the Deputy. I hope all the strands will come together and that there will not be what the Deputy perceives as a lack of direction in the area of research and development. His point was valid.
As Deputy Barrett said, aquaculture has been the subject of much sniping and he suggested we arrange a forum to take account of the problems being visited on fish farms. He suggested that fish farms are largely, if not entirely, responsible for sea lice in rivers and estuaries. The Deputy said the decline in sea trout stocks occurred in the late 1980s and, despite substantial research carried out by the Department and other independent agencies, it has not been possible so far to scientifically prove the relationship between the sea lice and salmon farms and infestations and wild sea trout.
It exists and there is no doubt about it. I have my own opinion on this although it is not what one might call a scientifically educated opinion. I am a sea trout and brown trout fisherman and I have seen the devastation caused in some areas. I put an action plan in place to conserve and protect sea trout stocks, involving extensive research and sampling programmes, a series of conservation measures and the initiation of a comprehensive restocking enhancement programme to increase the stocks in 1994. In addition, to augment my initial efforts, in early 1993 I established a sea trout task force with one objective, the salvation of the sea trout and to address the sea lice issue, under the chairmanship of Dr. Kenneth Whitaker. In the short period since the task force was established, he has produced an interim report which may be made available to Deputies. It is short, succinct and to the point, and it addresses the issues in a real way.
The task force's final report is expected to be finalised in early 1994. I established an expert representative group on fallowing strategies, with a view to identifying suitable sites to faciltate salmon farmers —lay fallow production sites for a period in the first quarter of the year. Deputy Barrett is aware that fallowing is an internationally accepted, scientifically recommended mechanism to break the cycle of infections with sea lice and other diseases. Substantial progress has been made by the group and it is hoped to have the necessary permissions in place for fallowing shortly. The scientific sea trout working group, which assesses all sea trout research within the State, will produce its annual report to me in a matter of weeks. This report on the views of the sea trout task force will form the basis for the action programme to protect and conserve sea trout stocks in 1994 and thereafter.
I agree that the sea trout is a heritage that appears to be under threat. I have fished in exceptional sea trout lakes, a number of which come readily to mind. I will not mention them all but one in particular is the Crumlin Lake on the Cois Fharraige Road between Galway and Carraroe. I fished there on many occasions and caught magnificent sea trout in the most marvellous conditions, in a part of the country of exceptional beauty. For the past number of years I fished that particular lake without any success. There is a problem there and I have seen it first hand. I am aware of it and it is being addressed urgently. If we do not solve the problem we will be without sea trout.
As Deputy Barrett quite properly said, sea trout farms come in for much criticism. We should reserve judgment on them until such time as the various fora have indicated where the fault lies. It is interesting that the sea trout task force is representative of fishfarmers, fishery owners and fishery boards in addition to experts from the Department of the Marine. It is a forum which is well represented.
Vote 31 — Agriculture and Food (Supplementary Estimate).
Vote 32 — Forestry (Supplementary Estimate).
The Minister and his staff are very welcome.
I welcome the opportunity to introduce two Supplementary Estimates, Votes 31 and 32 for the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, before this Select Committee. It is important to put these Supplementary Estimates into the context of development in the economy and the agricultural sector in 1993.
In general, 1993 was a good year for the agricultural sector with the value of gross agricultural output up 4 per cent on 1992 levels. Provisional estimates from the CSO suggest that farm income increased by 8.2 per cent this year. When account is taken of the reduced interest payments by the agricultural sector, the year-on-year increase rises to more than 11 per cent. The increase was due to a combination of buoyant prices for most products and an increase in the level of subsidy payments to farmers. As in any farming year, the benefits were not shared equally across the various farming sectors. The pigmeat sector experienced difficulties with prices well below last year's levels. In addition, the poor weather conditions have had an adverse effect on crop yields. On the other hand, prices for the main commodities, milk and beef, have remained buoyant throughout the year due to firm markets, the green £ devaluation earlier in the year, and, in the case of beef, the dramatic increase in live exports.
At EC level, 1993 marked the first year of the implementation of the CAP reforms. As the select committee is aware, the reforms represent the most fundamental overhaul of the Community's support system for agriculture since its introduction 30 years ago. The main thrust of the reform has been the move away from market supports towards direct payments to farmers. In this regard, the level of direct payments to farmers has increased to £445 million this year, of which £45 million was paid to arable producers under the area aid scheme.
I am conscious that many farmers were finding the new system, involving the submission of area aid application forms and maps, difficult earlier in the year. In response to these difficulties, the Department and the Ordnance Survey Office have agreed a substantial reduction in the proposed cost of ordnance survey maps as well as a commitment that applicants who submitted maps this year would not be required to do so next year. I am confident that these arrangements should remove many of the difficulties and fears expressed by farmers over the past number of months.
With those general comments as background, I wish to discuss some of the detail of what is contained in the Supplementary Estimates. The subheads A.1 to A.4 are part of the administrative budget which all Departments now operate. The total additional resources required under these four subheads amounts to £1.780 million. The bulk of this relates to additional postal and communications costs. These additional costs reflect the considerable additional administrative burden associated with operating the reformed CAP. As I said, this year of operating the new system has caused difficulties to farmers. It has also put a major strain on the administrative system and resources of the Department. I am confident that the problems are being addressed; certainly lessons have been learned during 1993 and I am confident that the Department and farmers will be able to adapt to the system more effectively in 1994.
The devaluation of the Irish punt in the early part of 1993 has required additional resources for three subheads: G.1 which covers the cost of an exchange rate guarantee which dates from the late 1970s and which will come to an end in 1994; J.3 which covers Ireland's contribution to the Food Aid convention — as our contribution is made in dollars, the devaluation meant that 10 per cent more Irish punts are needed to meet this contribution; M.4 which provides for funding the Common Agricultural Policy. Deputies will be aware that there are considerable running costs associated with the Common Agricultural Policy. These are costs in respect of purchasing into intervention, paying export refunds and providing direct payments to farmers.
There is a well established system of financing these costs agreed between the EU and the member states. Essentially, the member states pre-finance the expenditure and receive recoupment on a monthly basis. Thus some of the current spending — for example, direct payments to farmers — is recouped quite quickly. For expenditure on such items as intervention purchases, money is locked up over a longer period. The amount of money which is required to pre-finance the CAP obviously varies from time to time, but in recent years it has varied at any one time from £400 million to £750 million.
Due to the scale of this borrowing, the Government has primarily used foreign borrowing rather than borrowing on the domestic market. To have borrowed on the domestic market would have put upward pressure on domestic interest rates. The devaluation of the punt in early 1993 meant that exchange losses occurred on the foreign borrowing which was outstanding at that time. The Supplementary Estimate provides for £40 million which covered part of the cost of the devaluation and some subsequent exchange losses later in the year.
The other subheads relate to the grant-in-aid to the Racing Board—I.3, the cost of the beef tribunal—K.1, assistance to the seed potato sector in Donegal—K.2 and Market intervention losses—M.5. An additional £1 million is provided to the Racing Board, which will prepare the way for the establishment of a new horse racing authority early next year. As a further indicator of the Government's commitment to the future of the racing industry, the grant-in-aid to the racing board has been increased from £5 million in 1993 to £7.3 million in 1994 in the recently published Estimates.
As has been stated in the notes provided to Deputies, it is not yet possible to predict the final outcome in relation to the cost of the beef tribunal. The amount requested in the Supplementary Estimate —£1.7 million—relates to costs incurred in 1993 over and above the £1 million provided in the original Estimate.
Subhead M.5 relates to provisions which have had to be made following the Commission's audit and clearance of the 1990 accounts. The Department is examining the legal and financial consequences of the Commission's decision.
The purpose of the Supplementary Estimate on the Forestry Vote is twofold: first, to ensure the maximisation of European Union funding for forestry and, second, to ensure equality of treatment for all growers by treating Coillte Teoranta in the same way as any other company involved in forestry. While at first glance the figures might lead members of this commiteee to believe that there will be a major overspend on the Forestry Vote and a major reduction in EU funding, I would like to assure Members that this is not in fact the case. As part of the accompanying measures to the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, new EU legislation provides for hgher forestry grants and a higher EU contribution to the cost of these grants than had existed heretofore. These grants will now be funded from FEOGA guarantee rather than the Structural Funds thus expanding the scope of EU co-financing measures. My Department has submitted an afforestation programme to the Commission under this new legislation which covers the period 1993-97. I would hope that the programme will receive Commission approval in the near future.
Funding for forestry in 1993 was already provided under the Structural Funds programme for the period 1989-93. In order to avert an overlap in funding arrangements and at the same time maximise the national utilisation of available EU funds, we propose to transfer the surplus funding in the Structural Funds to the industry, tourism and other elements of the agriculture programme. The benefit of doing this is to ensure that Ireland can draw up to £15 million in EU funding some of which it would otherwise forego. While funding from Brussels for the new programme will arrive early next year, the amount due will exceed the shortfall in receipts this year by virtue of the increase in co-financing from 70 per cent to 75 per cent. Put simply, what is a temporary loss to the Forestry Vote is a gain nationally.
The second element in this Supplementary Estimate is the increase in voted expenditure. This arises because the new CAP reform afforestation programme, to which I referred, provides for the payment of grants to Coillte Teoranta through the Forestry Vote. Heretofore EU grants have been paid direct to Coillte. This is one of a number of measures which I am taking to ensure equal treatment for all recipients of forestry grants. The other measures include equal grant levels and inspection systems. I believe these measures will provide greater transparency in the flow of EU funding for forestry.
In summary, I am happy to commend this Supplementary Estimate to the committee.
The Minister's remarks have clarified some matters which were not very clear in the Estimate. There is a wider dimension to a Supplementary Estimate of this kind than has been referred to by the Minister. The proposed addition is £55.6 million more than the original Estimate for this year. That is an increase of over 25 per cent which does not suggest that, on the broader front, we can have confidence that the Government is keeping its expenditure programme under control.
I wonder to what extent the abridged document on the Estimates for next year, which I gather we will discuss in the Dáil Chamber this week, can be regarded as a reliable indicator of expenditure during 1994 if, in one Estimate this year, we have an overrun of 25.6 per cent. That raises a question about the extent to which the figures for the Agriculture Vote in the abridged volume of Estimates for next year is still a reasonable basis on which to work when looking at the expenditure forecast.
The Minister has again pointed out the level of direct payments made to farmers during the course of this year. I insist that we look at the other side of the coin. A substantial amount of money is still outstanding under various premium schemes and the Minister and I have already discussed that on other occasions. Some of those delays are quite outrageous. Under the slaughter premium scheme, payments that should have been made last June or July have not yet been made. That is not the only scheme where payments are still outstanding.
I am not impressed by the procedure of making advances on payments. That is a device which tends to further delay the final conclusion of payments for farmers. I find it all the more upsetting and worrying when the Minister advises that in contrast to the payments to be made to the Government on foot of market support schemes, the money paid out in direct payments is recouped quite quickly from EU Commission sources. I cannot see any justification for continuing long delays in making these payments.
I am aware that the Minister has advised that in relation to subhead A, some of the increases reflect the considerable additional administrative burden associated with operating the reformed CAP. That is only a part of the picture. The increases here refer to the additional administrative burden to the Department. They do not take any account of the additional administrative burden being placed on farmers which is very substantial. One part of it was referred to by the Minister when he spoke of the submission of maps. I do not wish to carpet the Minister on this, but if one considers the production of maps this year, it is fair to say that the Department and the Minister have been slow to move to deal with the problems that have emerged. Regarding the first submission of maps early in the year, there were serious problems with the Ordnance Survey Office in producing maps. It required considerable argument before the Minister, Deputy Walsh, agreed, when the main Estimate was debated last April, to get an agreement on simplifying the application scheme. I am pleased that such an agreement was obtained, but there should not have been that much trauma before it was simplified.
On the second round of the requirement for maps in the later part of the year, there has been welcome but belated changes in the rules and the requirements to take account of the difficulties farmers were experiencing in getting the maps. I am pleased that an arrangement has been made to reduce the cost to farmers from the Ordnance Survey Office. It was outrageous that the Ordnance Survey Office should have tried to scoop up so much money in the first place. I am disappointed that the Ministers let it go so far before they finally hauled back this runaway horse in the Ordnance Survey Office, which saw the opportunity to make a great deal of money out of farmers. It took far too long and caused too much worry before the changes were made and I am not happy with them.
Regarding the reformed CAP, I am aware that we cannot blame the two Ministers before the select committee directly for it, although the Minister, Deputy Walsh, was in office when these CAP reforms were being made by Commissioner MacSharry. It is not an exaggeration to say that we now have a more highly centrally directed system in agriculture than Khruschev ever had in Russia. It is nonsensical to find that there are so few things that can be done on an Irish farm without having to report them.
It is more efficient in Russia.
It was less efficient, because they had not figured out of the system. However, we have a more centralised system now. One can do nothing on an Irish farm without getting permission, or getting a quota or reporting it down on some map somewhere. One cannot put in an extra ewe, an extra suckler cow, produce more beef or another gallon of milk. Recently a farmhouse cheese producer told me that the Department has been obliged to go to the trouble of solemnly setting up a system to allocate a quota of 10,000 gallons to a local milk producer so that a farmhouse cheese producer can carry on her business. That level of regulation is nonsensical. It is no wonder that the Department is having administrative problems and it is less wonder that farmers are having serious indigestion dealing with the scheme.
I am not aware if the Minister has any intention of trying to lead a movement to get this changed. I do not like talking about him when he is not present, but his performance on the GATT does not give me any confidence that we are going to see any activity on his part to get some of these nonsenses taken off our backs.
Regarding the other items in the Estimates, I am aware that the Minister has said that there will be an increase is subhead I (3) for the new racing authority. I find it a bit sad that there is an extra £1 million being allocated at a time when the National Stud is looking for redundancies amounting to half of its staff. I see no element of support here for that part of the national improvement programme for horse racing.
On subhead K1 for the beef tribunal, how much more are we going to see in the Estimates next year? If my reckoning is correct, then through the agriculture Vote so far, we have spent somewhere in the region of £5.5 million to £6 million on fees for counsel in the beef tribunal. I suspect there is a bit more to pay.
It was claimed that we had seen the upside of the beef tribunal earlier in the year but I feel we are going to be seeing some of the downsides for quite some time to come. If my memory on the dealings between various Departments and the Office of the Attorney General are anything to go by, there could be arguments going on for quite some time about the level of fees that are to be paid and this will figure in further debates.
Regarding subhead M.4, I was astonished to find that an increase of £54 million in that subhead, some 38 per cent, is explained by the Minister in the terms he used in the Supplementary Estimate, "provides for £40 million which covered part of the cost of the devaluation and some subsequent exchange losses later in the year". Is there more to come that will have to be provided for in the 1994 Estimate? While I know it is not within the Minister's direct responsibility, on that subhead, the fact that the Minister is now obliged to provide an extra 38 per cent for the reasons he has given is an eloquent comment on exchange rate policy in the period from November 1992 to February 1993. Indeed, it is a comment on what went on from November 1992 to August 1993. That is another days work and not directly relevant, except to the £54 million extra that is provided for here. The Minister mentioned £40 million on subhead M.4 as part of the cost of the devaluation and the subsequent exchange losses. The gross in subhead M.40 is £54 million. Is there a separate explanation for the balance of £14 million?
I wish the Minister good fortune in his argument with the EU Commission about the extra £9.8 million he is to provide under subhead M.5 for the provisions that the Commission is requiring. I have some acquaintance with the arguments that go on there and I am sure it is no surprise to the Minister to learn that there is going to be financial theology argued during the course of those discussions.
I considered the Appropriations-in-Aid and the various savings and found some aspects of it upsetting. There are savings there of under £1 million on subhead A.8. There is a saving of £6.15 million on subhead M.12 and there is saving of £200,000 on subhead M.9. What these three subheads have in common is that they are the subheads out of which the various programmes for rural development are run. Subhead A.8. is in respect of the national programme for rural development, M. 9 is in respect of the operational programme for rural development and M. 12 is in respect of the Leader and INTERREG programmes. Between those three I find there is almost £7.4 million of a saving provided for, compared to the original estimate. That is a substantial saving over those three subheads and I would like the Minister to tell me why it emerges now that it is possible to make those savings. What was not done that was proposed to be done at the beginning of this year in the operational programme for rural development, the Leader and INTERREG programmes and in the national programme for rural development? From talking to Leader groups around the country my impression has been, and Minister Hyland knows what I am talking about, that they felt they were being a bit restricted in what they could do rather than they were splurging money, with the exception of one unfortunate incident in the earlier part of the year.
I note there is a saving of £2.3 million under subhead C.2. This is the subhead for bovine TB eradication and I would like to know how that saving arose, because the impression I have from farmers, and the veterinary profession, is that the programme could be prosecuted, if that is the right word, rather more energetically. I think there is a saving of £2.3 million on the original Estimate which was, if I have identified it correctly, £43.5 million for 1993. That saving is not an inconsiderable one on a Vote of that size.
Under subhead M. 1 there is saving noted of £8 million on an original estimate of £38.5 million which itself constituted a reduction of 16 per cent compared to the out-turn in 1992. That is a substantial saving of more than 20 per cent. Is that a reflection or a symptom of the low level of investment activity on farms because this is the one on-farm investment programme? If it is I have to say, although I take no pleasure in it, that it bears out something I was saying last year when we discussed these Estimates. I felt that the Estimate at that stage was rather optimistic in terms of the total volume of on-farm investment that was expected. My feeling then was that there was not the level of disposable income or the inclination on the part of farmers to invest at the level that was being suggested there.
When we come to discuss the Estimate for 1994, I am afraid that the same remark applies perhaps with even more force then before. Over the next 12 months or so I do not expect to see any great steam behind the level of farm investment because people only see restrictions facing them.
The only area where I can see any kind of enthusiasm, if that is the word for investment, is in relation to the programme that arises out of the requirement to bring down our somatic cell counts, which is not included in this Supplementary Estimate. I am disappointed it has taken so long to get that programme going. Too many farmers who are going to need investment in that regard do not know yet exactly what they will have to do or how much it will cost them. I fear that a number of milk producers are going to find themselves in a difficult position when those regulations are finally applied as I understand they will be from 1 January next.
I also note a saving of £1 million under subhead M.13 which is the agri-environment programme. That means nothing more or less than that the programme did not get off the ground this year. The saving is on the allocation of £1 million which was put into the Estimate for this year just to allow the programme to get going. It was a deposit in the account so that the Department could spend money on it if it got the scheme off the ground. The scheme has not got off the ground so this is the final confirmation that the agri-environment programme was a non-starter this year.
The same remark applies to the saving of £1 million under subhead M. 16 which, again, is the deposit that was made in the account for the early retirement scheme which is not getting off the ground this year either. The Minister and I have entertained each other about that also. It is disappointing to find final confirmation today that the scheme was a non-starter. There is more to be said about that scheme and I hope to have the opportunity later in the week of doing so. This is final confirmation that all of that dragged on for too long and neither of those two schemes got going this year.
It would probably be out of order, Chairman, to talk about the prospects for 1994 for the agri-environment programme and for the early retirement scheme. I am not a lot more optimistic about the impact of those schemes in 1994 than I was for 1993. The Minister might not believe this but it does not give me any pleasure to say that I was right at the time. I remember having several arguments with the Minister of State, Deputy Hyland, during the course of the past 12 months making predictions about money that would or would not be spent. Unusually for me, it turns out that even I was widely optimistic in terms of the amount of money that could be spent. I remember the Minister getting particularly vexed with me some time ago when I predicted that nobody would get any money out of the review of the disadvantaged area scheme before 1994. How right I was. I would be surprised if they get any money out of it by the middle of next year given the Department's recent record on payments under these schemes.
If, I may, Chairman, I will go on to the forestry Vote where the difference being proposed is still of a substantial order of magnitude compared to the original Vote. I take the Minister's point that certain things are being done and, in a sense, there is a reduction in some expenditure here as a banker to open the way for a more rationalised programme next year. Without knowing a great deal more about it than the Minister has told us today, all I have to say is it seems to be a wise thing to do in order to make sure that we take up the maximum possible amount under the allocations from the European Union.
I am disappointed to find some recent indications that we are not perhaps going to take up the full allocation under the suckler cow scheme because I think the Department is being a bit too rigid in its application of that scheme. To the extent that this kind of procedure is being taken in forestry, and I approve of it, I would urge the Minister to adopt the same view more often in relation to agriculture.
I was interested to hear the Minister say that one of the purposes of this Supplementary Estimate for forestry was to ensure equality of treatment for all growers by treating Coillte Teoranta in the same way as any other company involved in forestry. I was delighted to hear that as Coillte Teoranta has not been operating in the same way as any other company involved in forestry up to now.
It is fair to say that Coillte Teoranta has been operating in a rather bullying way in some of its activities up to now. It has proved to be a difficult company to deal with for people who are in the timber processing industry and who are buying timber from Coillte Teoranta. There have been cases where Coillte Teoranta has acted in the manner of a super-careful and super-conservative bank in the way it deals with any question of credit to those to whom it is supplying timber or saw log. Coillte Teoranta has not always been too particular in the way it has gone about planning its forestry programme so if Coillte Teoranta is going to be treated in the same way as any other company that must be a major improvement.
I urge the Minister to think about a more rational planning of the forestry programme so that some of the fears that we hear from people, who feel they are going to be surrounded by forestry without having any say in it, might be allayed. The Minister quite rightly said that it would be wrong to suggest anything as constraining as an application for planning permission to engage in forestry operations but there is room to have a look at the rational planning of forestry operations both from an environmental point of view and, also in some ways, from a social point of view. There is a social aspect to the environment as much as there is to anything else.
There is nothing of huge moment in the Estimate. The biggest single provision in the Supplementary Estimate is £7.3 million under subhead C. That has been well explained by the Minister and his point is well taken.
I seem to have gone a bit outside the running order of what we proposed but I do not think there are too many colleagues around to object to a slightly creative way of dealing with the running order.
I would like to respond in a general way to some of the points Deputy Dukes raised. I always listen with interest and care to his contributions on agriculture although he knows I do not share the same views on reform of the Common Agriculture Policy. If Deputy Dukes was to be fair in his assessment of the CAP he would have to admit there would be no future for Irish farmers outside the CAP reform. We all regret the limitations which any scheme like CAP reform places on the production cycle of Irish agriculture but, on the other hand, if we did not have a quota system guaranteeing certain levels of production in various crucial areas, then Irish agriculture could not be planned and individual farmers would not know where their future lay. It is generally accepted that our success in relation to CAP reform was something that was recognised even outside the shores of this country. Many independent commentators, both at European level and at home, agreed that we did succeed in getting a good deal in the overall context of CAP reform. The team, apart from the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, that negotiated the CAP reform for Ireland was one of the best groups of negotiators ever to negotiate for Irish farmers.
In the context of GATT, which is a worrying situation for Irish farmers and for the economy generally, I share Deputy Dukes concern, but the team that is negotiating on Ireland's behalf in Brussels can be relied on to get the best deal possible for Irish farmers. The Government will endeavour, even at this late stage, to safeguard for the Irish agricultural industry and the economy which is dependent on agriculture, what we negotiated in the context of CAP reform. Our Minister and our key negotiators, an excellent group of people, will deliver to Ireland the best possible deal. It is a little disingenuous of Deputy Dukes to be so critical of our Minister. I do not know of any man that is genuinely more committed to securing the best deal for Irish farmers. In terms of facing up to the challenges, I do not know of any Minister who would leave these shores not wanting to do a good job. The Minister, and his team, are no different in that regard.
Will the Minister permit me to make one point? Did the Minister ever read Tarry Flynn, the wonderful work by Partick Kavanagh? There is a discussion in it on religion and it is a bit like talking about agriculture. Tarry was asked at one stage how much he believed and his reply was, “some of us is doubtful”.
I have no difficulty in allowing Deputy Dukes interject with any comment he wishes to make. In his opening contribution he referred to over expenditure and the need for a Supplementary Estimate. The increase of 25.6 per cent, which is the amount he identified, is an indication of the Government's commitment to provide the maximum level of funding to meet the demands under the various subheads within the overall agricultural Vote. That is why the provisional Supplementary Estimate is being brought before the select committee.
The Deputy referred to a shortfall, or under expenditure, in relation to the operational programme for rural development and made specific reference to the control of farmyard pollution. I was a little concerned when I saw that figure and I queried it. We made provision in the Estimates last year for £94.8 million for that programme. We invited applications and we received a very high level of applications. In fact we gave commitments to an expenditure of £112 million — in excess of £94 million was provided in the budget. We received 28,300 applications. The farmers who received the grant approval from the Department were not in a position, for their own reasons, to respond to the allocation which we made and it was very late in the day, after making additional inquiries, that we found that much of this money would not be spent. Arising from that we found it possible to reallocate somewhere in the region of £11 million and we look on board many of the applications which had not been processed under the original application. We discovered that there is this amount of unspent funding which will be carried into next year's Estimates and which will enable our farmers to benefit.
Under what subhead is that?
Subhead M.1. The Deputy referred to it in the context of an under expenditure. We provided £94.8 million and we gave commitments to the amount of £112 million for 28,300 applications——
The Estimate, as it was drawn up last year, is the net expenditure from the Exchequer?
Yes, but we allocated the entire funding in response to applications we received from farmers. That money had not been drawn down even though some of that work is under way.
Under subhead A.8 the Deputy mentioned the shortfall of £966,000. The Deputy will recall that the figure relates to what was then intended, the appointment of rural co-ordinators in the context of the operational programme for rural development. We then succeeded in negotiating Leader Programme 2 and we had the small community enterprise scheme which we eventually transferred to the local authorities. There was then a new approach to rural development and the Department did not proceed with the recruitment of these co-ordinators. That gave us the saving, under that subhead, of £966,000.
The Deputy also referred to subhead M.9 for the operational Programme for Rural Development and there is a saving there of £200,000. Again, that figure arises because there has not been a full draw down under the various programmes. It is a small amount of money but I wanted to respond to the Deputy's query.
In relation to the Leader Programme, Deputy Dukes and I often had discussions about it across the floor of the House. He shares my view that Leader is a very effective programme and an important one for the future. The shortfall there in terms of expenditure, £6.150 million, relates to money which has not been drawn down by the 16 groups throughout the country. That money is being carried into 1994. We have got Commission approval to extend the programme so the money will be fully drawn down by the 16 Leader groups by mid-1994 which is the completion date.
Deputy Dukes referred to the agri-environmental programme. We made provision for £1 million in the Estimates on the basis that we would get Brussels approval for that programme. I expected this would happen in December but it has now transpired that the authorities in Brussels are still querying some aspects of our proposals and, while I do not want to be definitive about it, I suspect we will be able to get approval for that programme in January or certainly early in the New Year.
It is worth making the point in relation to the agri-environmental programme and the early retirement scheme for farmers that in submitting our proposals under these schemes, and the operational programme for forestry, we looked for the maximum level of funding we could possibly get as well as the most generous schemes we could negotiate for the country. It is in that context that the Commission is asking questions about it.
The £1 million has not been spent, as the Deputy correctly identified, because we have not got approval from Brussels. I wish to refer to the Deputy's constructive contribution on the operational programme for forestry. We explained how the savings have come about as a result of the transfer from a guaranteed fund to FEOGA which in the long term was brought about for the purpose of maximising the benefit of all EC funding here.
The forestry programme presented to Brussels, which we had anticipated would be approved in December this year, unfortunately has not received Brussels' final imprimatur. That arises from the fact that we went for a very ambitious forestry programme looking for the maximum level of funding. We now find Brussels is asking more questions. I would like to thank Deputy Dukes for his generally favourable comments on our forestry programme. He knows that Coillte operates as a semi-State organisation and has a separate brief under which it has to operate to commercial criteria. The Government and the country expect that Coillte will deliver from that point of view. In the context of the new operational programme, Coillte will be placed on the same footing as everybody else involved in forestry. That is proper and leads to a greater degree of transparency in relation to how our forestry programmes are administered.
Thank you very much, Minister. I propose the following draft report:
The Select Committee has considered Vote 34—Enterprise and Employment (Supplementary Estimate); ;Vote 30— Marine (Supplementary Estimate) and Vote 31—Agriculture and Food (Supplementary Estimate). The Supplementary Estimates are hereby reported to the Dáil.
Report agreed to.
Ordered to report to the Dáil accordingly.
The Select Committee adjourned at 7 p.m.