I have circulated a suggested timetable for our discussions. I suggest we finish at 6 p.m. at the latest. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Today we will deal with the Estimates for the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. I welcome the Minister, Deputy Yates.
I am pleased to present the 1995 Estimates for the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry to the Select Committee.
I wish to sketch briefly the background against which this Estimate must be seen. I will then comment on a number of sub-heads which I believe will be of most interest to Deputies. As we go through the breakdown I will be happy to respond to Deputies' queries.
With regard to the economic situation 1994 was another good year for Irish agriculture. Aggregate farm income increased by 6.4 per cent which represents a good performance by the sector following increases in 1993 of 3 per cent and 18 per cent in 1992. When interest paymets are taken into account the increases rise to 8.5 per cent in 1994, 5.7 per cent in 1993 and 32 per cent in 1992.
As in most years the growth in farm incomes was not distributed equally across all sectors. The milk sector held up quite well while declines in the beef and sheep sector were noted. There was a welcome improvement in the pig sector but the cereal sector suffered another poor year as adverse weather conditions and the CAP reform price reduction combined to push output value downwards. This was compensated for by the substantial increase in area aid payments made to the cereal sector. The year 1994 was an outstanding one for potato growers with an increase in the value of output of almost 80 per cent. Direct income payments to the sector increased by over 58 per cent to £670 million.
The performance in the early part of this year has been satisfactory although very wet weather in the first ten weeks badly affected sowings and caused problems for lamb production. Milk production has been behind that of last year although quota restrictions due to our being over quota at the end of the marketing year may have explained this. Cattle prices have held up well and supplies are running well ahead of last year. Pig prices are improving and it looks like 1995 will be a significant turn around year for that sector with profits being recorded. Direct income payments are set to increase again this year and should reach about £700 million which would account for almost 35 to 40 per cent of farm incomes.
The gross expenditure for Vote 31, Agriculture and Food, is £542.3 million and Vote 33, Forestry, is £56.5 million. These figures represent an increase respectively of 10 per cent and 21 per cent. When Appropriations-in-aid are taken into account the net expenditure for this year is estimated to be £270.4 million for Agriculture and Food and £14.4 million for Forestry, representing an increase over last year of 7 per cent and 15 per cent respectively.
As indicated in the brief distributed to Deputies, the Estimates consist of 78 subheads of which 53 relate to expenditure and 25 to Appropriations-in-aid. These are grouped into seven expenditure sections and three Appropriations-in-aid sections, the broad details of which are given in page 1 of the brief. As in previous years the Estimates do not include FEOGA guarantee measures which are fully funded by the EU budget, or the capital cost of purchasing products into intervention. The total EU moneys accounted for by my Department amounted to in excess of £1.3 billion last year and is expected to reach £1.4 billion this year. All the premia payments etc. are not in these Estimates.
It is clearly not possible to discuss in great detail all elements of the Estimates. I will focus on a number of the more significant items in the Estimates which also relate to my own priorities. When I was appointed Minister over five months ago I decided that one of my foremost priorities was to improve the quality of the Department's services to farmers. The charter of rights for farmers was launched last month by the Taoiseach and is a clear expression of my commitment and that of the Department and the Government to quality service delivery.
The charter must have financial commitment. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, secured £5 million in this year's budget towards it. The breakdown of that £5 million is £1.6 million for staff, £1.225 million for information technology and consultancy, and £2.175 million for office accommodation and refurbishment. These are all covered under the administrative sections of the subheads.
Since January my Department has been engaged in considerable work in fleshing out the detail of how the charter would work and how it would be implemented. The charter is a written commitment to farmers of the quality of the service they can expect from the Department. The charter is the farmers' assurance of full information, privacy and confidentiality, prompt response to queries and definite payment schedules.
The charter provides for improvements across a full range of schemes and services administered by the Department. It sets out detailed timetables of payment arrangements for all direct payments to farmers, including headage and premia payments, forestry grants and premia, animal disease related grants and on-farm investment grants. It also sets out response times for the processing of applications to enable errors to be rectified as soon as possible and to facilitate payments within the administrative time limits. It sets out a programme to update office accommodation and provides for an appeals procedure.
There are a number of other measures in the charter which will improve our services to farmers. We are looking at our information technology facilities to see how they can be improved and strengthened. We are trying to further simplify forms and get the maximum use of pre-printed forms with information from previous years' claims from farmers. Farmers who require or seek special help in completing forms will be facilitated by staff deployed in local centres, for example, marts. In future farmers will receive an end of year statement detailing all their payments under all the schemes.
In relation to farm investment, in the early part of the charter there is a clear recognition that its implementation will have to take place within the envelope of available European and national resources. At the launch of the charter in Warrenstown College I indicated there were clear problems of inadequate resources for certain farm investment schemes. This was a situation I inherited as a result of the allocations of EU Structural Funds. That being said, Deputies will see from subheads M1 and M2 that provisions increased from £34.5 million in 1994 to £56.1 million in 1995 — an increase of 63 per cent.
Subhead M1 covers outstanding works under the control of farm pollution — CFP — scheme in the last tranche of funding from 1989 to 1994; on-farm investment measures under the present operational programme; and ongoing expenditure on existing farm plans under the farm investment programme. Subhead M2 covers the milk quota restructuring scheme and the installation aid for young farmers.
Due to the unprecedented demand from farmers for aid under the CFP scheme which exceeded the available resources I was obliged to suspend the scheme on 27 April. Over 18,000 applications have been received. Up to that time 6,000 applications have been approved to commence work. This represents a grant commitment of £35 million which will be fully honoured on a draw down basis in 1995 and 1996. We are seeking European Commission and Department of Finance approval to bring money from the later years forward to the earliest possible date. We have already received partial approval for this and we are working on an ongoing basis as demand will arise.
In order to establish priority categories for the processing of unapproved applications I set up a consultative group. Arising from the implementation of their recommendations I have decided to give full approval to 220 CFP scheme applications from farmers who had already been in receipt of payment under the REPS and who are obliged to carry out pollution control works within 12 months. I am also arranging for the processing of approximately 3,000 applications received up to the end of last year. Subject to meeting the conditions of the scheme they will be paid in 1997. The balance of unapproved CFP scheme applications will be considered as part of a further more detailed review of the scheme which will be completed by next September.
I am concerned to ensure that the suspension of the CFP scheme will have the minimum impact on REPS. That is why we have given the go-ahead for the 220 cases to which I referred. I will also be making efforts to get the 12 month deadline extended to two years in relation to the carrying out of pollution-related works and I discussed this with Commissioner Fischler yesterday.
Headage and premium payments are now a crucial component of farm incomes. They are 65 per cent funded by the EU and 35 per cent by the Exchequer. The Exchequer provision for headage is in subhead M4. The provision this year is £121.3 million which is down from the £134.9 million last year. This is explained by the carry-over of 1993 payments together with advance payments of 85 per cent of amounts due under the 1994 schemes. There was a bubble in the system in 1994 due to earlier payments being made and some of the late payments from 1993. This allocation of £121.3 million includes £10 million which fully meets the commitment in the Programme for Competitiveness and Work that progressively over a number of years we would pay all headage payments in the year of entitlement. Next year with the remaining sum we will be able to meet the commitment that all payments for 1996 will be paid in that year. In the case of suckler cow and special beef premium schemes, the regulations preclude any payment before 1 November each year and even then limit the payment to 60 per cent advance.
I accept that the CAP reform arrangements have introduced new and more complicated schemes. The total number of applications last year was in excess of 650,000. This presented difficulties for farmers and administrators. Additional staff and a major computerisation programme in my Department's local offices improved the situation in 1994 and will further improve it this year. The situation is a marked improvement on previous years because only the remaining individual cases must be sorted out. For this year there are clear commitments in the Charter of Farmers Rights and I anticipate that these commitments will be fully respected.
We will discuss the CAP under a number of subheads, L1, L2 and A8. I will refer in detail to J1 on the beef tribunal at a later stage. Deputies will note that the provision for L1 has fallen from almost £60 million last year to £32.1 million this year. This reflects a reduced use of intervention in the beef, dairy and cereals sectors. The destocking of intervention products explains this decrease in moneys.
Subhead L2 provides for market intervention losses by deficiency, accident, etc. It covers payments to the EU Commission consequent on its auditing of FEOGA accounts and write-offs of intervention stock losses. The provision of £6 million relates to the amount we owe in the 1991 clearance of accounts. We do not make provisions until a decision or determination has been arrived at.
The process of clearing FEOGA accounts has come into focus recently, given the large proposed disallowances which we are vigorously resisting. I dealt with this issue in detail at a three hour meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs under the chairmanship of Deputy Ferris. I answered questions at length, but I am happy to answer any further ones. We have a strategy in place to try to minimise this fine and to consider recovery.
Within the past few years my Department has made significant improvements to its control systems. In the beef sector, for example, control inquiry teams were set up to ensure that controls were operated in strict accordance with the provisions of the relevant regulations and to prevent and eliminate irregularities.
An active programme of measures to protect the financial interests of the EU is being financed by the provision of £565,000 under subhead A8. We have set up an internal audit function and I commend the Assistant Secretary, Mr. Tom Arnold, who has done a lot of work in this area. Mr. Bob Semple from Price Waterhouse is the Chairman of the audit committee. It has agreed a charter which has been cosigned by the Secretary of the Department, the Chairman of the committee and myself. This is the first time a Department has had input from private accountants and our own staff in new audit measures. The charter is a new initiative which I support.
We have provided £25 million for the cost of the beef tribunal, to which I referred earlier. This figure is an estimate. No bills have been presented to the Taxing Master yet, so we do not know what the final outcome will be.
I refer to two areas other than the charter which relates to my own priorities, the food industry and the forestry sector. As regards the food industry, subhead H1 shows an increase from £3.2 million in 1994 to £10.2 million this year. This covers An Bord Bia. Members will be aware that this new body was set up last December. It goes further than the functions of CBF, which it subsumes, by taking into account the food and drink functions previously done by An Bord Tráchtála. We are talking about a substantial increase in the provision of over £7 million compared with the provision for CBF. If one considers this, as well as the levies, etc., the total amount of money for An Bord Bia is approximately £17 million. There is also a carry-over from 1994 of £2 million of Structural Funds.
The aim of An Bord Bia is to develop and implement a comprehensive marketing strategy for the development of the Irish food industry through the provision of activities which include food promotional and development projects, the provision of financial incentives, strategic studies of the food industry and the dissemination of market information. I am in consultation with An Bord Bia about its five year development plan which I hope will be published shortly.
The first ever national development strategy for the food industry was launched in February. This will provide an investment of £640 million between public and private moneys. The target is to increase output in the sector from £8 billion to £12 billion by 50 per cent over five years and to create an extra 5,000 jobs. The four key areas in this programme are capital investment, research and development, marketing and human resources. We are integrating the work of Teagasc, Forbairt and An Bord Bia under this plan and a food management unit is being established in my Department to implement this.
A further key element in the development of the food industry is research. Almost £6.5 million has been provided in 1995 for food research under the sub-programme. Research institutions, including Teagasc, will compete for this funding and I have appointed a high level committee to advise me on acceptance of projects. Some 75 per cent of funding will be provided by the EU and 25 per cent by the State. These research and promotional measures will assist the development of a strong innovative food industry capable of seizing and exploiting market opportunities at home and abroad.
As regards, Forestry, Vote 32, the principal provision is in Subhead C, which deals with the attractive range of forestry grants to be paid as incentives for planting. The £49 million budget for these grants is an increase of almost 25 per cent over the 1994 outturn and the main reason why we expect a record level of planting this year. Last year the total planting was approximately 23,000 hectares, but our target this year is 30,000 hectares.
In addition to attractive planting grants which are proving to be of great interest to farmers, in particular, who are the main driving force behind the increased planting levels — that is why I want more farm forestry as opposed to corporate forestry which we also support — my Department will also be offering grants for training and harvesting machinery to facilitate further development of the sector.
Deputies will note that I am also making provision for a substantial increase in the forest research budget. We expect to double last year's expenditure level for this invaluable forest research work. A high level of research work is a hallmark of a successful, go-ahead sector and I am determined to achieve a progressively higher level of forest research activity in the future. I commend COFORD for its initiatives in this regard.
Forestry has made great strides in recent years. Planting levels are high and we have also succeeded in attracting flagship industrial forestry projects such as the Oriented Strand Board plant in Waterford — Louisiana Pacific in joint venture with Coillte Teoranta — the Masonite plant in Leitrim as well as the expansion of the Medite plant in Clonmel. When all these are in full production, over 1,000 jobs will be provided. These developments stemmed from planting policies 25 years ago and the increased provisions which I am now making for 1995 are laying the foundation for new employment in the years ahead.
My Department commissioned a study, which was conducted by consultants, on a strategy for the development of the sector over the next 20 years to the year 2015. This has been recently completed and I look forward to bringing to Government during the year a 20-year strategy for the development of the sector and to publishing it later in the year. I acknowledge this does not deal with the multiplicity of schemes and operations which my Department organises, but I am happy to deal with them on an intemised basis. I commend the Estimates for my Department to the committee.
I compliment you, Chairman, on taking the chair today. I also welcome the Minister to the committee. I assure him that any of the work with which we agree will have our total support. Our business on this side of the House is to ensure that agriculture, and consequently the country, will benefit from the activities of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. However, it may appear from time to time, the Minister can be assured that, in the final analysis, he will have our total support.
With regard to the beef tribunal, will the costs be awarded to those people who made allegations which were later proven to be spurious? For example, 14 allegations were made by the Minister of State to the Government and at the Department of Employment and Enterprise, Deputy Rabbitte, ten of which were totally unsubstantiated. If the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Food is to pay the Bill — something with which I would not agree — the enormous amount of time spent dealing with these allegations will cost the taxpayers a huge amount of money, and farmers will be shortchanged. Will the Minister provide a full explanation of his position on this matter? If we ask the taxpayer to carry the costs for unsubstantiated claims we will open a door which will be very difficult to close down the road, given that any of us, at any time, can make such claims at no penalty to ourselves, even if we are not sure that they can be substantiated.
With regard to the multiplicity of schemes, the Minister's colleague in Wexford, the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Finance and Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Doyle, recently pointed out that there are 81 schemes in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. There is an overlapping between these schemes, and if there are 81 of them, 81 forms require to be completed. Farmers are not the best form fillers and Teagasc should not be continually asked to complete forms with them. I appreciate the Minister's attempt to simplify the forms so that they may be completed in the shortest possible space of time and with the least possible cost to the State from the viewpoint of saving on the valuable time which officers give to them when they should be undertaking other work. Is it possible to reduce the number of schemes without reducing the intake of money into the country? The Minister will be aware that in recent times a consultancy firm has been established in Wexford to advise farmers on form filling. Effectively, therefore, we are creating a new cost to farmers. For example, I am told that in some instances they pay out 50 per cent of what they take in. This should not be the case.
What is the situation with regard to the appeal on disadvantaged areas? This is a constant question for Deputies in Wexford. The appeal was lodged on 11 November 1993. To date people have not been advised of the outcome. Perhaps that is a good thing because the day the Minister will have to advise them will be very interesting.
There is an ongoing debate in the Dáil at present — which has received very little attention because of other matters — regarding the CFP and the REPS scheme and remarks made by the Minister as to how the attendant problems might be alleviated. The Minister's suggestion that he would expect farmers to pay down money for which there is no return other than a cleaner environment is ridiculous. Such an investment would be very difficult at the best of times unless it puts shillings in one's pocket. If a farmer is to follow the Minister's suggestion and undertake the work now with the expectation that he will get his money in 1997, he will have to go to his bank or lending institution. While great credence would be put on an approval from the Minister in considering such an application, there would be substantial interest and capital repayments. In view of this, the Minister knows that his proposal will not be a success, so he must look elsewhere.
Last night, the Minister asked how this extra money could be obtained? Big money is required, but if the Government has the environment as its priority it will find the moneys. Other Ministers appear to be able to get money: for example, the Minister for Health, Proinsias De Rossa, was able to get £210 million at the drop of a hat. He first announced the sum of money and then perhaps embarrassed the Cabinet into coming up with it. Perhaps the Minister could advise whether he looked for the money at Cabinet and, if so, whether he was outvoted? There is no reason why the Minister cannot use the same tactic on behalf of agriculture and the environment, which stretches in importance far beyond agriculture, into areas such as the Department of the Environment, tourism and individual lives.
Farmers were slow to admit that they contributed to the difficulty with the environment. They now admit that they are part of the problem in so far as they have applied for this new scheme. However, the Government is now telling them that while it knows they are interested, it has not got the money as its priorities lie elsewhere. It consigns agriculture to the status of a dirty industry, and to hell with the environment, fish kills and dirty streams. The Minister is also aware that his failure to keep the CFP going has had detrimental consequences for the REPS scheme.
There have been demonstrations and conferences on live exports. The Minister has had as many, and possibly more representations than myself with regard to sheep prices, and to some extent cattle prices, because farmers believe that if the live exports were as active as they might be, both sheep and cattle prices would be higher. Live exports are essential in a country such as ours. It is incumbent on the Minister to take a tougher line with the ferry companies to reintroduce in some instances, and continue in another instance, live exports. The ports from which the ferries are exporting — whatever it might be — have been publicly funded. In our own area, two of them have received substantial funding. The ferry companies cannot cherry pick the business and should be obliged to undertake a legitimate trade. Above all else at this time, live export is the issue of major concern to farmers. I am saying that to the Minister as a colleague, both in agriculture and here in this House, to which we look to resolve this problem. There are many other issues that we may touch on later, but not wishing to raise your ire, Chairman, I will stop for the moment.
We will proceed with debate on subheads A1 to A9.
Deputy Byrne has raised points and I would not like to feel that I was dodging any of the issues. If it suits the committee I will deal with them briefly. Raise questions in whatever way you wish, Chairman, I am here to co-operate with the committee.
The Deputy raised the question of the beef tribunal costs and the fact that people who made allegations had their costs paid. I want to be absolutely clear about this issue. It was a matter for the Chairman of the Tribunal to determine the issue of the award of costs. My understanding is that he awarded costs in all cases except one in which he made a partial award to a small farm organisation. It was not a matter for the Government to decide; the Chairman decided. The Dáil set the tribunal up, so the taxpayer ultimately foots the bill. In relation to the level of costs, if the Minister and the Department of Finance feel the claims are excessive they can be referred to the Taxing Master. As the bills have not come in yet, the question has not arisen, but the Government is determined to minimise these bills because there is general disquiet that the legal fees were exorbitant.
The Deputy made a second point about 81 schemes. As an example in support of what was said, there were 26 separate forms for schemes in the forestry area. In the next three weeks we hope to reduce these to two. I agree with the Deputy. The problem is that sometimes there are many schemes because there are many EU initiatives and if we are to draw down the maximum EU money, particularly for Community-led initiatives, we have to conform to those initiatives. We have to get approval from the EU Commission in every case, so sometimes if we had fewer schemes we would get less money. However, where possible we will try to streamline the number of schemes.
Negotiations have been taking place with EU officials in regard to disadvantaged areas. We discussed this at length with Commissioner Fischler and his Chef du Cabinet yesterday. Members will be aware that he gave a commitment that he would complete the Commission's analysis of the extension and reclassification file before the Commission's summer break which is the month of August. He reiterated that commitment yesterday. His intention was to respect and honour it. During the remaining part of the year the extension and reclassification file could be brought through the Parliament and the Council of Ministers. I imagine that will be a rubber stamp exercise which will be time-consuming but which will not get into the detail of it. In other words, the Commission hurdle is the significant one.
The files containing the work of the appeals panel have been there for a while. There are several problems. First, there is a shortage of staff in the Commission to deal with this. That is why it needs a political push to hurry it up. Secondly, there is a shortage of staff to deal with Norway, Sweden and Finland. These three countries have been preoccupied with establishing their base number of disadvantaged areas. The fact that we have an Austrian Commissioner is also reflected in certain priorities. Those are some of the reasons for the delay.
There is also a dispute at that technical level with some of the findings of the appeals panel. They are resisting the inclusion of island areas, for example, in the extension. They are saying that some areas do not meet the criteria laid down for reclassification of which members are aware — the 7.8 per cent tillage, the stocking density of one per hectare, the income criteria and so on. That is the level at which the technical officials are dealing with it. We are seeking to maximise the input and I am determined to bring this to finality.
We debated the CFP last night and it will be debated in the Dáil. I did not give conditional approval. I do not want a situation where I or a successor of mine is answering questions in the Dáil about delays in payment when there would simply be no money to meet all approvals. This would happen if I were to give approval in all cases. It would be dishonest of me to give approval knowing that the cost of meeting the 6,000 who are approved is £35 million already, bearing in mind that only £3.7 million was allocated for next year. Having had £30 million brought forward I want to pay as I know we can.
We have gone from £34 million up to £56 million this year. I am now told that not all the £56 million will be paid because there will not be enough money. I will get them paid as soon as they are due to be paid, in line with the charter, but I do not want people to think they will be paid and then discover that there will be a long delay before they receive their money. I want them to know where they stand. I do not want them on bridging finance, not having secured proper finance. As soon as I can issue a time schedule for the unapproved, the conditionally approved, and the approved, I will do it. People who are fully approved need have no fears, they can go ahead and will be paid as it is required. At this stage it looks as if the conditional approvals will be paid in 1997.
In relation to live exports. I acknowledge the tremendous co-operation I have received from the shipping companies in recent weeks. I said at a sheep conference in Wexford that at the end of the month I expected certain things to be done. I am absolutely satisfied that they will be done. There are seven days to go to the end of the month and I will make a further comment at that stage. There has been a marked turnaround in the situation. Irish Ferries have been carrying, the other two shipping companies are being very responsible and I respect their position, which is that they do not want to have a big public announcement which will bring another backlash of other types of protests. I am absolutely satisfied of their bona fides in this regard. In relation to the non-EU trade, the numbers are actually up 9 per cent on last year, so there is no problem. That deals with some of the questions raised. We can go on to deal with items seriatim now or in whatever way the committee likes.
I wish to make two fairly brief points. In relation to the beef tribunal, it is very sad that agriculture has to carry the can. The Minister has taken £25 million from the Agriculture Vote. The Minister himself mentioned the colossal costs involved in the beef tribunal. The amount of time taken up with individuals and with unsubstantiated claims should surely not be funded by the taxpayer, irrespective of who made the decision. Does the Minister agree that the Chairman of the Court should decide how the taxpayers' money should be spent if he decided that unsubstantiated claims should be accommodated? Natural justice would suggest to me that under no circumstances should people be encouraged to put forward spurious or unsubstantiated claims. What happens in this instance will be a precedent for future Governments. If we take a stand at this stage it will be for the benefit of the country and for democracy in the future. I am asking the Minister directly whether he agrees that what has happened should happen? I honestly believe that under no circumstances should unsubstantiated claims or the time taken to deal with them be paid for by the Irish taxpayer.
In relation to the CFP and the amounts of money the Minister proposes to pay in 1997 for work done possibly this year or next year, will the interest accumulated be paid by the Department?
In relation to the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry paying for the beef tribunal, a Dáil motion on 24 May 1991 established the tribunal and the Government and former Minister Michael O'Kennedy decided that the Department would pay for it. If one goes through the Estimate line by line, there is no sustainable case that the £25 million provided has been taken from another section of the Department. Additional moneys were provided and an increase is still shown if one excludes the £25 million and considers each subhead. The figures appear as they do because the intervention moneys are down and because of the Appropriations-in-aid situation of receipts of EU moneys. However, all sections show an increase, such as the administration and grant schemes areas. More money is being invested this year. The loss is to the taxpayer and not to the expenditure in the agriculture area.
More money might have been available to the CFP if it had not been necessary to pay that money.
The problems with the CFP, to which I will refer later, relate to the on farm investment Structural Funds. These are only subject to lateral movement and would only arise in terms of pro rata funding and giving a greater State contribution. They are not transferable moneys. The money for this year’s Estimate is not the problem with CFP. It is a problem with the total moneys for the five year tranche. We have enough money this year in the Estimate.
In fairness to the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, some of the allegations he made on tax irregularities, etc., were true. He is not here to defend himself, but it is appropriate to say that some of his allegations were true.
Three of a total of 14.
My views on this matter are irrelevant. However, the costs of legal representation were excessive. I made the point repeatedly that the per day and non sitting day rates, etc., were excessive. I hope the Taxing Master will find in favour of the taxpayer when that matter reaches a conclusion. All the other matters were legally and democratically set out by the Dáil as the clear functions of the sole member of the tribunal. It is not for a member of the Executive to now unwind decisions of the Oireachtas.
Regarding the Deputy's question, interest payments are not envisaged in relation to the CFP.
Are there questions on subheads A1 to A9?
These cover administrative payments, such as telephone bills. For example, if the bill is higher than the Estimate, the appropriate amount will be paid. It includes some moneys allocated from the charter to which I referred. We have appointed some temporary staff as permanent staff in the district offices and we will take on some extra staff, for example, in the appeals unit. Improved information technology is critical to the improved performance of the Department in terms of service. This area is also included in the subheads.
How many personnel are in the Department? How many personnel does the £81 million accommodate? Regarding the 6 per cent increase, is there an increase in the total number of people working or was the increase in their remuneration bigger than most others?
I have asked my officials to consider the question of overtime. The number of staff in 1994 was 3,904 and it is now 4,079. There is also a substantial number of staff in Teagasc, etc. The rule of thumb, if one includes every subsidiary and group, is that we would head towards between 5,500 and 6,000 staff. This is a ballpark figure.
Why is there a substantial increase in consultancy services?
It is under subhead A7.
There is a specific sum for information technology. The Deputy will appreciate that computer hardware is very expensive. We want to get state of the art equipment and have decided to hire consultants on computerisation. This is the reason for the increase in the consultancy budget. It is not to give me greater opinions and it is nothing to do with PR. It relates only to computerisation and it will be money well spent.
I carried out an initial analysis of the problems in January and I found, for example, that the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry is similar to the Department of Social Welfare in terms of issuing payments, but somebody remarked to me that the Department was about 12 years behind the Department of Social Welfare in some respects of computerisation. We need to get this right and we need to spend money on it.
The office premises expenses are also substantial.
Does any particular aspect concern the Deputy?
There is an increase of 160 per cent.
I have a separate programme, under which I want to upgrade the office accommodation of the Department. For example, there were some decentralisation costs in Portlaoise. I have an extensive plan and some of the offices I want refurbished are in Enniscorthy, Roscommon and Tipperary. Work also needs to be done on the offices in Castlebar, Ballybay, Cavan, Navan, Drogheda, Mullingar and Sligo. There are some refurbishment and decentralisation costs involved in this area. The charter provided £2.175 million.
I have held discussions with the Office of Public Works about this matter. Both Garda stations and unemployment offices had 10 per cent of their money within the Office of Public Works budget ring fenced for five or six years. This meant they did not have to fight for it each year and a systematic programme of upgrading offices could be established. I am trying to secure a six or seven year deal for local district offices of the Department. Some of the offices I visited in Tipperary and Ros-common are very bad. They do not have proper facilities for private interviews with farmers and conditions for staff are inadequate. Office accommodation is a priority of mine and I make no apology for it. The Deputy will agree that staff are entitled to work in proper conditions. On a lighter note, my predecessors did a superb job in refurbishing my office and there is no need for me to add to it.
He was a good west Cork man. Are subheads A1 to A9 agreed? Agreed. We will now deal with subheads B1 to C3.
Subhead B1 covers research and training, while subhead B3 deals with grants to rural Department organisations, such as Teagasc. The sum of £71 million is very significant and I will be happy to answer questions relating to Teagasc. This area also covers ERAD, the cattle improvement matter, the TB scheme, general disease and eradication — BFE — and all those type of schemes. It also covers Askeaton, another issue which engaged my mind recently.
On grants to farm and rural development organisations, I presume the substantial decrease relates to Macra na Feirme's anniversary.
Yes, that is right. It has to do with Macra na Feirme's 50th anniversary. It was a once-off item and it was conditional at the time that it would be. I have done a lot of things for Macra. I put them on the NESC and introduced aids to young farmers. They did not require money for their 51st birthday the way they did for their 50th.
I have known them, and I think Mr. Arnold will agree with me, not to accept money if offered to them. It is a good organisation and I hope the Minister will keep it high on his agenda. In relation to livestock improvement and bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis eradication, the Minister will agree the scheme has not been the success it should have been considering the amount of money spent on it. There are talks going on at the moment and I understand they may be at a critical stage. Can the Minister comment on the reduction of 32 per cent in the provision for improvement of livestock and the reduction of 3 per cent in the eradication scheme and give us an update on the talks with the IVU?
Talks have been ongoing between the IVU and the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Deenihan, in trying to secure agreement on the singular issue of rotation. This is a three-year package of one year rotation — one third, one third and one third — so that the farmer-vet link would be broken over a three-year period. We have put a 23 per cent increase in fees on the table, some from the Programme for Competitiveness and Work and the rest to compensate for rotation. We are prepared to do the rotation in a way that will almost guarantee that no veterinary practice has less work or less income and that will allow us over a three-year period to draw down £14.8 million of EU funds. The Government are determined to proceed with rotation. There is no compromise available on that issue and I will take whatever steps are necessary to implement that. I hope the IVU will come to a decision on this. We have written to them to say we must have a decision within seven days. The level of delay is not acceptable and the Department is entitled to insist on this.
A £30 million EU aid package was on the table some years ago and, due to lack of IVU agreement, we lost the money. I want to make it abundantly clear that Europe and the Commission have said the TB eradication scheme cannot continue as is. The taxpayer and the farmers have paid over £1 billion since 1954 and we have not eradicated the disease. In fact, we are only maintaining a control level. It is totally unacceptable. That farmers are paying levies of £29 million is, to some extent, wasteful of their resources.
My patience is exhausted on this issue. No better offer will be put on the table and I appeal to vets to co-operate with the scheme. They need have no fear. It does not reflect in any way on their integrity. It is simply a case of dealing with the question Europe asks as to why the disease is not being eliminated as in other countries. There is a clear suggestion that, for whatever reason, reactors are being left behind in the herd. If they request us to change our method of testing, given that the scheme has safeguards for vets' incomes and, in fact, enhances their income, I feel it is eminently reasonable. I make this last appeal to avoid a serious conflict, one which I will not hesitate to win. I am determined to draw down this money. I appeal to vets to put this matter to a ballot and accept it. The Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan, has improved and sweetened the offer to the point where it is no longer possible to improve upon it further.
In relation to subhead C1, this specifically relates to an incentives scheme for the Irish draught horse. The aim of the scheme is to encourage the breeding of registered pure-bred Irish draught horses. Foals born in 1994 will be the last foals paid for under the scheme. It seems to be tapering off. It is the windup of it so that is the reason for the reduction. There is £188,000 provided for the cattle breed improvement programme. This deals with cattle performance testing and weight-recording schemes. It deals with progeny testing of certain beef sires. The reason for the reduction under subhead C1 relates to the ending of the draught horse scheme. There are other schemes, like the foal incentive scheme, etc., where we are involved with the horse board and they are happy with them.
The fact that we are only maintaining a control level of TB under the eradication scheme borders on failure. The last thing a farmer wants to see on his farm is a vet doing tests so it is in his own interest to get it right. In the dispute between the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry and the IVU sometimes one might forget that the real issue is the eradication scheme. Whatever else the dispute might bring about, the Minister must insist there will be continuous testing, whoever might do it. I am not saying the Minister should cave in. I admire his stance and I hope he wins through because we must make inroads into this whole business. It has been going on for far too long under successive Governments. I ask the Minister not to forget eradication, the central issue here.
On subhead B3, a grant-in-aid to Teagasc for general expenses, has the Minister a view on the fact that the headquarters of Teagasc is in Dublin? Many of these organisations, such as Bord na Móna, the Sugar Company and so on, seem to have their headquarters in Dublin, robbing rural Ireland of its share of the administrative jobs that make up such a great part of agricultural industry nowdays. I suggest that Teagasc be spoken to and told to move to the country, preferably to Athenry, of course. It should be dealt with.
I welcome Deputy Byrne's remarks on the TB eradication scheme. The central issue is improved mechanisms to ensure we clear reactors out of herds and do not allow the disease to spread as the testing goes on. The direct issue is whether we want the £14.8 million of EU funds or not. The EU has made it quite clear to us that we should not even bother to ask for more money in future if we are not prepared to contemplate this. If we want to continue the scheme as it is, we must forget about any EU support. That is a pivotal issue and I would not like any partner in the scheme, farmers, vets and so on, to forsake that national gain.
In relation to Deputy Ó Cuív's point, the headquarters of Teagasc is on Sandymount Road. I have been in the building, which is not luxurious. They are a decentralised organisation, with a nationwide structure of county and provincial offices which provide services under the direction of a chief executive officer. They have decentralised research facilities at Grange, Dunsany, Moorepark, Johnstown Castle and so on. The administrative functions are as well done in Dublin as anywhere else, as is the case with any headquarters of a nationwide organisation. They would like me to convey that they are not urban-centred in mentality. They just happen to have a unit there for administrative reasons: it should be seen in that context.
That is a weak answer. Administration costs, including support services, are £4.86 million. What is it saying to the rest of the country?
All that will not be spent in Sandymount.
I accept that, but a fair slice of it will be spent in Sandymount. What it says to the rest of the country is, quite simply, that nothing can be done without having headquarters in Dublin. In this age of modern computer facilities, better transport, etc., it could as easily be centred somewhere else. I come from that part of Dublin and I have nothing against it but I do not see any reason for a rural organisation to have its headquarters in Dublin. That thinking belongs more properly to the 1950s and 1960s than to the 1990s, the idea that communications are so bad we have to centralise everything in the capital city. We have a huge problem of declining rural populations and the shift is from the direct to the indirect agricultural job. We know that if agriculture maintains jobs, it will not be in straight production. Everyone accepts that but there is an unnecessary number of jobs in the capital city because people cannot make the quantum leap in thinking away from having everything headquartered in Dublin. I make the same criticism of the farming organisations: I do not see any justification for it. We have a bulging city, whose problems are created by a high increase in population, and rural areas are declining rapidly. We have a facility in Athenry that could quite easily be used for this purpose and would provide much better office equipment. It is on a railway line and not more than two and a half to three hours from anywhere in the country. I suggest that this would be faced head on.
I will have the Deputy's views conveyed to the chairman of the Board of Teagasc.
That completes subheads B1 to C3. We will resume immediately after the vote in the Dáil for the debate on subheads D1 to K.
Subhead D.1 provides for An Bord Glas, for which there is a five year development plan. Subhead D.3 provides for organic farming. Subhead E provides for trade exhibitions and promotions, which is part of An Bord Bia's important work. I attended Berlin Green week and IFE, which are the biggest promotions in the UK and Germany, which are our two most important markets. They went very well. There is reference to winding up the Pigs and Bacon Commission and the Dublin and Cork district milk boards have been rationalised and sold. I referred earlier to the grant-in-aid for Bord Bia's primary development plan. The meat classification scheme is crucial to quality.
A sum of £6.7 million in grant-in-aid has been provided for the Irish Horse Racing Authority. I am pleased that £80,000 is being provided to Bord na gCon for substantial development at Enniscorthy track. There is also a flag ship development at Shelbourne Park costing £2.5 million and provision for the non-thoroughbred horse industry.
We are providing an extra £1 million for the world food aid programme. The Tánaiste and Deputy Burton, the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, have taken a very active interest in this. I am glad my Department has been able to assist this programme because it is important that we meet our international obigations in that regard. We have been asked by the US to host an EU food aid conference next year.
Subhead J1 deals with the beef tribunal, which we have already debated and subhead K deals with the Land Commission, which is being wound down by stealth.
I welcome the Minister to the committee. He spoke about the grant-in-aid to Bord na gCon, which is welcome. However, there is serious concern of which the Minister is aware within the industry.
He specifically mentioned the development at Shelbourne Park and I agree that any development is welcome. However, there is serious concern about whether at this juncture it is the best type of development in the interests of the industry. Around £2.5 million is being spent on it whereas a number of tracks throughout the country are in a very poor state and need major funding to bring them to a reasonable condition to attract racegoers away from Dublin.
There is no doubt that the number of racegoers is decreasing. Worse still is that the number involved in breeding is in decline. There is a very strong view in greyhound circles that something has to be done in this area. Stewards involved in registering dogs and litters, can confirm that there has been a reduction of more than 30 per cent. I spoke last night to a man who used to have 50 dogs but now only has one. There are numerous people like him. The greatest concern is that the costs of breeding and rearing dogs are so prohibitive. Unless money is provided people such as the man to whom I spoke will not have the necessary raw material to keep the industry alive.
It was pointed out that the Minister of State at the Department, Deputy Deenihan is in South Africa. Some people from Bord na gCon are there as well to try to develop a market there. If we do not have dogs to run in Ireland, we will not have them to sell abroad. Some tracks are now reducing their number of racing nights because their managers cannot get dogs to run. I have already suggested to Deputy Deenihan that he should talk to Bord na gCon about this. The production of the raw material, that is the greyhound, must be encouraged.
A number of horse racing tracks are under threat. I read with regret that there is a question mark over the track in Navan. It would be a tragedy if this closed because it is regarded as one of the best racecourses in the country. Whatever about facilities and crowds, the racecourse itself is a true and fair test. In view of developments in Northern Ireland, more people will probably come to Navan which would be the nearest track to the North after Dundalk. I hope every effort will be made to ensure Navan is kept open, particularly in the short term, to at least allow it an opportunity to develop.
A move to Saturday night racing in Leopardstown has been suggested. If this happens, we may as well close Shelbourne Park. It has been estimated that there are about 10,000 or so consistent racegoers who will either attend horse racing or greyhound racing events. Saturday night is a traditional greyhound night. If horse racing is to compete with this, the investment in Shelbourne Park will be a waste because people will not go there. Apart from punters not being there, bookmakers operate at both horse racing and greyhound race meetings. I ask that this proposal be reconsidered.
Two race tracks in this city have been closed. There was major investment in the Phoenix Park race track but it is now lying idle. Baldoyle racecourse has been closed for many years. It is unfair that, given the amount of investment in Leopardstown, it should now seek to have racing on Saturday nights. It should assess why crowds are not going there rather than trying to attract people from events on other nights. I appreciate there may be summer and festival meetings but it should consider whether it is not providing proper racing, mixed cards or whatever. Some of the smaller festival meetings are able to put on a mixed card to attract punters. The two sports cannot compete on the same night. I think this would be clear to the Minister.
I know the Deputy has a background in and a strong knowledge of the greyhound industry. I would certainly defer to his wisdom about the decline in breeding and sales and the need to develop provincial tracks. My understanding is this is one of the clear areas delegated to my junior Minister and I will leave him to get on with it. The Government has asked that a strategic plan be put in place for the long term development of the industry and new legislation is proposed to restructure it. I will certainly be sympathetic to providing whatever supports are necessary to enhance it. A reduction in VAT on greyhound feed was provided in the budget and this was a help. I am anxious to assist in any way I can. I am very anxious that there should be even-handed treatment of tracks owned by the board and private tracks. I am aware of the decline in the greyhound industry, in attendance numbers, betting, etc. and this spiral must be reversed. I will ask the Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan, to liaise with the Deputy on any specific input he wishes to make.
As long as I am Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry I will oppose the IHA in closing racecourses. I do not want Navan to be closed. The track is superb; not only is it an invaluable national hunt course but all the top trainers say it has one of the best racing surfaces in the country. The course should have more backing from Navan people as it has lacked community support. There have been problems. One of the reasons Navan is under threat is that it is owned by the IHA, which has more power to close its own tracks than others, as opposed to closing it by stealth. The Taoiseach and the Deputy have expressed themselves strongly to me about it and I will tell the IHA there is no political support for its closure.
There is correspondence from Bord na gCon about Saturday evening racing at Leopardstown. I hope to bring both sides together. In my initial contacts the IHA said this was a once off experiment and that it was not its intention to rob greyhound racing of revenue. However, there is a conflict and I agree with the Deputy there are other ways — through more Sunday racing and better facilities on courses — apart from dipping into the limited pool of greyhound racing on Saturday evenings in Shelbourne Park, which is self-defeating.
I am unaware of other fixtures which are proposed to go the same way but there is deep concern in the greyhound industry about the issue. I have arranged a joint meeting with Mr. Noel Ryan, the chief executive of the IHA and Mr. Collins, the chief executive of Bord an gCon. This is receiving active attention from me and I hope for a substantive response on two of the three issues.
Why has there been a reduction in the glasshouse improvement scheme and the development of organic farming? Both schemes should be encouraged but there is no greater discouragement than reducing the amount of grant available. What is the significance of the tremendous increase for An Bord Bia? Perhaps the Minister could explain where the money will go and to what advantage.
The scheme to which the Deputy referred is a grant scheme for glasshouse improvement. We have only allowed for a nominal figure of £2,000. The scheme was terminated on 31 July 1994; it lasted for five years and was introduced in August 1989. The provision is a token figure to cover any payments which were not made by the end of December 1994. Approvals stopped some time ago and the scheme has wound down; it is just a case of having enough money to honour approvals already issued. It is a mopping up operation. People owed money will be paid, even if the amount exceeds £2,000. The scheme pre-dates my time in the Department.
Subhead H1 was also raised. I want An Bord Bia to produce an aggressive marketing drive. We are considering an event in May and June of 1996 which will bring in the top 300 worldwide buyers to promote Irish food — seafood, white and red meat, drink, dairy products — at one venue. We have never promoted all Irish food together as being synonymous with Ireland. We are working within the industry on this, which is only one measure. ABT was working on a targeted marketing consultancy programme and those, among other schemes like trade promotions, are in the five year plan.
An Bord Bia wants to pick out 120 food firms and introduce them to the market of 400 million European consumers. The UK is our biggest market, we sell £1.4 billion in food there. The French sell £1.8 billion so we are in second place. By the turn of the century we want to be the number one food exporter to Britain.
It is interesting to note that more Irish food is consumed in Britain every day than in Ireland. We have to develop it, especially in prepared consumer foods like pizza. Goodfellas pizzas hope to go from 0 per cent to 30 per cent market presence; it is currently at 17 per cent. A frozen product like that has added value from which we can benefit in jobs in Portumna and Naas and in Heinz in Dundalk.
To choose an example of a fresh product, we have 40 per cent of the mushroom market, they have to be transported into Sainsbury and Tesco stores in England within a 14 hour period. We must build on that, show we have the logistics and attract foreign investment.
The marketing initiative of An Bord Bia is to build on what was done by CBF. There was a difficulty in that there was a targeted promotion in the pigment sector; there is now a problem with lamb, in that there is a generic promotion to get people to eat more lamb. There is a need to promote red meat; the consumption trends are difficult because of welfare and vegetarian concerns. The nutritional value of red meat — in iron, etc. — should not be understated, not to speak of the taste, quality and flavour.
Direct company assistance will be provided through consultancy, financial help and hiring graduates. We will move from the big PLCs and co-ops to the smaller companies. An Bord Bia will also provide direct market research — the board must be the eyes and ears of the food industries, showing them the big hypermarkets in Spain, making contacts, showing companies how things work and what the credit terms are. There is a two way flow of intelligence and promotional information about Irish food products. If a company could not afford a presence at trade stands and exhibitions in Belfast, Cologne, SIAL, Berlin or London, An Bord Bia can have an umbrella stand to assist them.
I hope the five year plan will be published within a month and there is huge potential for getting quality Irish products sold. The overall food drive is to get out of commodity production and intervention, produce more value added goods and products with more long term consumer market share and return. An Bord Bia has a tough job to do and I will depend on it to get markets for our products.
I also asked about organic farming——
There is provision in subhead D3; I must have been anticipating a query because I have a prepared reply; £131,000 is provided under subhead M2, entitled general structural improvement, as part of the operational programme for agriculture. Money is being moved. There is also a small provision of £10,000 for the cost of inspections.
I have a final question about the grant scheme for glasshouse improvements. The year before last there was structural damage to glass-houses and applications were made to the Department for support. Wallaces, one of the foremost firms in that area, sustained substantial damage and were expecting payment but have not received it. I do not necessarily want information on that case — I would like it at a later stage — but what is the general position?
The best way to proceed in the case is for me to communicate directly with the Deputy. What is the location?
The Wallaces are from Horeswood, near Campile.
I will follow that up; I do not know the position.
I will deliver the cheque if the Minister likes.
That is part of the horticultural Estimate, which is also dealt with by the Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan. If we have good news we will give it to the Deputy.
What is the Minister's view on the progress of Bord Glas? The amount being allocated shows a substantial increase of 21 per cent in cash terms. What are its achievements to date? Is it achieving its objectives or is it superflous? There seem to be a lot of State boards involved in promoting different aspects and questions have been raised as to whether there should be a separate board for this sole purpose.
Is the Minister satisfied with the progress Bord Glas has made in improving the domestic market and helping to create employment? What levels of employment has it achieved to date? What increases in output and exports has it achieved?
A sum of £1 million is being provided. Can the Minister give us an idea as to how that will be spent? Last year there was income of £29,000 from another source and there is not any this year. What was that figure? Under the development of organic farming there is expenditure of £10,000; a drop of 60 per cent seems a huge reduction. Is that because there is an amount in another subhead or is it a deliberate decrease in the amount? What brings it about?
The figure for participation in the trade exhibitions and promotions is £155,000. Would the Minister give us an idea of what it costs to participate in one of these major promotions? The Minister mentioned the Berlin Green Week. What does it cost the Department to participate in that? What is the cost of participation in other shows? In how many other shows does the Department participate and what benefit is derived?
The Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan, deals directly with horticulture.
He is not here.
I appreciate that, but I wish to acknowledge his role. Horticultural output is of the order of £56 million. We account for 0.3 per cent of the total Community horticultural production of fruit and vegetables. We are not a major player. The amount of money we are allocating to it is not the sum total we are spending on horticulture. Teagasc has a horticulture division which deals with research and advisory services.
Bord Glas was the brainchild of the former Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey. It has a five-year development plan which was conceived by the last Government in 1994. I am happy to support that. It is labour-intensive sector. We have a high level of fruit and vegetable imports which is unsatisfactory.
There is one principal processor of vegetables which is in Cork. I had discussions with its parent company in New York recently and there are problems. We have declined hugely in the processing of vegetables. It is not a simple matter. We import a lot of potatoes, for chips, for example, and there are problems with the varieties. It is not a facile matter of Bord Glas delivering on it.
The cost of Berlin Green Week was £100,000. I was there as a guest of the German Government and I do not know if that is included in the £100,000. We go there every year. Attendance is much appreciated by the German Government. There is a political value attached. Germany is the paymaster of Europe. Their role at the Council of Ministers is pivotal, and that alone would justify it.
Cooley Distilleries was there, for example. It is a small company with a few brands of malt whiskey. An Bord Bia is of great assistance to them. Meat is promoted generically. At the IFE at Earl's Court, for example, An Bord Bia takes a stand but there would also be five or six different companies there.
Overall we get good value. There is a change regarding the value of exhibitions. In terms of the UK there is a more direct link between the manufacturer, the processor and the supermarket chain. With regard to "own label" products one is dealing with direct negotiations. Five multiple chains control 61 per cent of the UK market and 50 per cent of their sales are in "own label" products.
I am satisfied we are getting value for money. With regard to the long term future of Bord Glas a question can validly be raised as to whether some of the Teasgasc horticulture functions should go to Bord Glas. The promotion functions should remain with An Bord Bia — as with all food and drink products — so Bord Glas would not get the export promotion role.
The reorganisation of the common market for fruit and vegetables is due for reform. It may fall to our Presidency to resolve the matter in 1996. The producer groups have a pivotal role in everything from citrus fruit to cauliflowers. It is important to have a State authority that can foster the growth of producer organisations. They are pivotal to the draw down of EU funds in any reform.
The Minister seems convinced we are getting good value for our participation in the Berlin Green Week but he did not refer to any of the other shows we participated in and their cost. I take it he is less than satisfied we are getting the same value for money from Bord Glas. He did not give it a whole-hearted endorsement. Is that an accurate conclusion?
Not really. It has a five-year development plan in place. I do not want to undermine it in any way, but valid questions can be raised. Its budget of £1.5 million is small. The Teagasc budget is £70 million, without Appropriations-in-aid. It is true that horticulture has not been given the priority other areas have. Total agricultural and food output is £8 billion and £56 million out of that is quite small. There is a problem with the level of imports and I would be anxious to support anything Bord Glas could do to lower that level.
Apart from SIAL and Anuga, the major trade shows are Berlin, and the IFE. There is also NIFEX in Belfast and the involvement would be quite small after those. SIAL and Anuga alternate each year and that would be the next biggest. We are involved in local shows but at a very small cost in overall terms.
All Governments have been guilty of setting up State boards. This presumes that people are exclusively in one business or another. We will probably see sections of Irish farming return to being involved in a multiplicity of enterprises. There are a few dedicated horticultural producers. The great tragedy of imports is that farmers who grew vegetables, potatoes, etc. ten or 20 years ago no longer do so, even to supply local markets. There has been a revival of interest in organic farming particularly along the west coast where many people had stopped growing their own vegetables because they were penalised under the social welfare regime. An Bord Glas does not have a role in this regard, but Teagasc has and I do not understand why we need another organisation. An Bord Bia could look after exports and Teagasc could control all other operations.
The Land Commission is the Cinderella of all services. When the Land Commission is officially dissolved much of its work will be incomplete. The 1995 estimate for the Land Commission has decreased from £148,000 to £40,000. I tabled questions in the Dáil on the need for extra resources to enable it to catch up on the huge volume of outstanding work which is costing farmers in the west.
There are two major issues in this regard. The first is the need for commonage division by agreement. Resources are needed in this area because without an independent agency, such as the Land Commission, to recommend the lot split, it will not happen. The second issue relates to the registration of titles and the estates of the Congested District Boards established in the last century. People in the west are trying to get titles to land, titles which the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry often want for headage payments, etc. There are unresolved cases which have been in the Land Commission's offices for ten years. Extra resources should be given to resolve the issue of titles and estates, for example, the Guinness estate so that people can have a modern title to the land.
Does the Minister have any intention of transferring the land functions of the Land Commission to Land Registry and creating a one-stop shop in relation to land ownership and land tenure?
Is there any plan to speed up the operation of the congested District Boards and land vesting sections of the Land Commission or to amalgamate it with a revamped Land Registry — registry of deeds is a matter for the Minister for Justice — so that we could have a one-stop shop for registration of title? If necessary, we should introduce legislation so that we do not have to go back to 1890 Acts to try to establish title to land of which people have been in possession for 60 or 70 years. I remind the Minister that many grants from the Department hinge on good title and people must wait for money because they cannot get such title.
On the Deputy's comments about the Land Commission a decision to dissolve the Land Commission dates from legislation proposed in the late 1980s and enacted in November 1992. I hope I will be able to sign a dissolution order dissolving the Land Commission and, as far as I am concerned, this cannot happen a minute too soon. As a Deputy, I was frustrated at the delays in the Land Commission office. My Department will directly administer many of the functions to which the Deputy referred, such as the disposal of the small area of land remaining on hands, the revesting in the new owner's land allotted or yet to be allotted, the exercise of statutory control over subdivision of farms, the purchase of land by non-qualified persons and non-EU nationals, the provision of assistance for schemes for the rearrangement of commonage division and other statutory obligations in relation to collection of annuities, custody of documents, etc.
On the points about title, etc., the Deputy's proposal is worthy of consideration to see what way a revamped office — I am also critical of the delays in the Land Registry office — could expedite matters. I will ask my Department officials to consider this matter in conjunction with the Department of Justice to see if proposals can be brought to Cabinet.
On subhead H3, which deals with grant-in-aid to the Irish Horseracing Authority the development of Mallow racecourse in my constituency is crucial from the point of view of the thoroughbred racing industry in the Munster area. I am concerned that over the past few months deliberate efforts were made by certain sources to paint a wrong picture of Mallow. I refer to what has been described as the serious flooding problem there. The Minister visited the racetrack and can confirm that there is no such flooding. I am glad the report commissioned by the Irish Horseracing Authority, at the request of the Minister, is now available to him. I presume he is studying it.
Money was not made available by the outgoing Minister to develop Mallow racecourse. I avail of this opportunity to plead with the Minister to ensure that Mallows gets the green light for the type of racecourse required. This is not only in Mallow's interest, but in the interests of the industry and the economic development of north County Cork. Perhaps the Minister could indicate the time-scale of the development because many people in Mallow want to develop accommodation and enterprises, but this is contingent on upgrading Mallow racecourse. I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on the matter.
I am familiar with the proposed development at Mallow and we provided £6.15 million to the IHA this year. Most of this is in respect of prize money, administrative costs and race-course development. The IHA will present me with a five year development plan. I have stated publicly that if this involves the wholesale closure of racecourses it will not have very much support from me or the Government. They must manage their moneys in a fair and even-handed way.
I visited Mallow, the Deputy mentioned the matter to me on numerous occasions and the question of its development is a matter for the IHA. It has received the technical reports, as I have, as to the question of the suitability of the development in Mallow for all year around racing. The report sets out a number of options which would involve a cheaper development if we did not race in December, January and February. I am anxious to assist the Deputy and the people in the Cork area in providing a proper racecourse because there is not a satisfactory course there at present.
I await proposals from the IHA, which owns the complex at Mallow, regarding its development. Assuming it is a mult-million pound development plan, it will have to be financed over a number of years. I will then discuss with my colleagues in the Department of Finance and the IHA the amount that will be funded within the IHA budget and the additional amount required. I hope a decision on those matters will be made before the end of the year.
With the funding provided from within the IHA and the remainder from the Exchequer?
From the Exchequer. It will depend on the timescale for the project in terms of funding, and the total cost. The ball is firmly in the court of the IHA and I await its proposals. There will be no delay on my part in coming to a speedy decision.
Subhead H3 refers to the Irish Racing Authority, which would make it the IRA, not the IHA. Will the Minister clarify this point?
It should be the Irish Horse Racing Authority.
Will the Minister give an assurance that none of the money provided in the 1994 Estimates —£6.95 million — found its way into the coffers of the political parties? The Minister will be aware of his reply to a parliamentary question I tabled recently and it is appropriate that I should raise this point now.
With regard to subhead J1, will the Minister provide a breakdown of the individual payments and to whom they were made with regard to the sum of £25 million provided for expenses arising from the tribunal of inquiry into the beef processing industry?
We have exhausted the time available for this area. A parliamentary question was tabled by the Deputy on this matter. I understand that while no funds were paid by the IHA to any political party, a subsidiary racecourse owned by the IHA participated in a fund raising event for the Fianna Fáil Party at the Ballybritt races during Galway race week. The participation was in the nature of paying for a catering company which in turn supplied services to the tent provided by Fianna Fáil. While I am Minister I am anxious that none of the State boards under my aegis will give money to any political party. It is not appropriate.
Have instructions been issued accordingly?
In line with the reform legislation which will be introduced in this regard and given the publicity that arose from the ESB and the racecourse in question, I would take it as read, but the Deputy can rest assured that I will certainly convey my views on the matter to those concerned.
With regard to the beef tribunal——
This morning's events in the House would lead us to believe that we should not take things as read.
If not already answered, those matters will be fully answered also. The question of the beef tribunal was alluded to before the Deputy's attendance at the committee. A sum of £25 million has been provided, but little or no claims have been received. They will then go to the Taxing Master if they are not satisfactory. We have not paid out any this year.
Is there a list in respect of last year's expenditure of £362,000?
I will communicate that to the Deputy. It is not part of these Estimates, but I will endeavour to get that information.
We will now address subheads L1 to L5.
These deal with the CAP schemes. Subhead L1 is down substantially because, to all intents and purposes, intervention no longer exists for beef and so on, and, therefore, it is pro rata. Agency costs are down. Subhead L2, dealing with market intervention losses, is similarly down. Export refunds to beef are substantial at present, but this is an item which is on demand, it is not as if there will not be money to meet it. The question of disallowances arises under this and I can take questions on it.
Subheads 3 refers to the REPS scheme, to which Deputy Byrne already referred. We intend to have the scheme up and running and to go from £1.2 million last year to £18 million this year. Approvals are now running at the rate of 200 per week and we have resolved many of the teething problems.
The early retirement scheme is another major success story for my ministry. Sums have increased by two and a half times, from £5.4 million to £19.4 million. It is a necessary scheme to facilitate the transfer of land to young farmers. Finally, there is set-aside.
Under the REPS scheme, the Minister advised that his Department had received many applications. I put down two parliamentary questions on 28 February 1995. I asked for the number of herd and flock owners in Connemara and was advised there were approximately 6,000. I also asked how many applications for REPS had been received on that date and was advised that the number was 15. The experience in my constituency is that the REPS scheme is a little complicated and it is difficult to conform to the requirements, even though we probably have the most environmentally friendly farmers in the country in terms of use of fertiliser and so on.
The scheme is not tailored to meet the requirements of people in the hills. In addition, another problem has arisen in that under the scheme some people have been required to undertake farmyard pollution work. They will not get grants to do so, yet it will put them out of the scheme. Some of the few who had intended to participate in the scheme will not do so because they will not be able to avail of the farmyard pollution scheme to enable them to afford the cost of the REPS scheme. Perhaps the Minister could provide an updated breakdown to the committee of the number of applications to the scheme per county because I have a suspicion that it will be established that the stronger farming areas are gaining disproportionately, as they normally do, from the scheme?
I do not have a detailed county by county breakdown. We recently submitted information by way of answer to a parliamentary question and we can do so again. To date, 2,108 farmers have been approved from approximately 3,000 applications.
How many herd owners are there throughout the country?
There are 170,000, involving approximately 130,000 to 140,000 farmers as some people have multiple herd numbers. In addition there are full time farmers. The ball park figure is, say, 150,000.
We are behind target as there were problems. Teagasc is now involved in this, in public meetings, etc. Teagasc's involvement in other schemes, such as the arable area aid, made it a success. It was not involved when this scheme was launched on 1 June last year. It is only now getting off the ground and I am anxious to perk it up in whatever way possible. As the Deputy is aware, I have given the 220 REPS cases approval. Anybody who is involved in REPS will get CFP approval no matter when he applied. Sheep farmers do not have CFP work and I am disappointed with the uptake in the west.
It is the custom.
I do not accept that. The intensive dairy and tillage farmers, and others such as beet producers, have done well over the years, while dry stock farmers have lagged behind. This scheme is made for the lower stocking rate. It is money for old rope.
Having had discussions with REPS planners, I know it is the fear of the unknown. The Deputy should refer his comments to the local CAO to find our exactly what Teagasc is doing to simplfy the scheme. I accept that there are complexities, but, given the experience of others who partcipated, it would take very little to conform with the scheme. One is talking about payments of up to £5,000 a year for five years and it is well worth considering for people who are involved in an extensive type of farming.
We will do anything we can to support it. If problems arise with the EU Commission — I did not negotiate the terms of the scheme — the advisory body set up by Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan, will examine what red tape could be relaxed. The EU is doing this for environmental reasons and will not be anxious to relax it. However, if there is a problem, we will examine it.
It is not a question of relaxing red tape, rather of making the scheme operable. I refute the innuendo that farmers in the west are somehow less anxious to enter schemes and that they have some paranoiac fear of the unknown. I live in an area which is probably one of the most progressive in the country. The people have put their money into various schemes over the years, such as industrial and forestry development. They have done things which people in most other areas would find difficult to do.
The reality is that when the people look at this complex scheme, and add up the benefits in terms of what they will get from it they find too many problems with it. A farmer with a common-age share takes his sheep off the hill, while the neighbours leave sheep on the hill. When he puts the sheep out in the spring, the grass is gone. This is the first problem.
The second problem involves a farmer getting a small social welfare payment because he is on a 30 acre hill farm. Neither the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry or the Minister for Social Welfare has yet given a straight answer as to whether the income from the REPS grant will be assessable in mean tests. If it is accessable, it will put every dole farmer in the west out of REPS. Who will take a grant of £3,000 if he has to give it over to the Department of Social Welfare?
The third problem involves fencing along streams, etc. This is a farce on the mountains. I was in the business of manufacturing fencing stakes for a long time on behalf of a co-op. While we always hoped there would be a scheme to fence mountains, we did not want a situation where one would fence every little stream coming down the side of a hill for fear sheep might do some damage to a scheme.
Will the Deputy come to the point?
I have made many points.
The Deputy is making a speech.
I am addressing various difficulties, of which the Minister must be aware, in relation to why this scheme is not getting off the ground. The Department should visit hill areas and talk to the people there, instead of lecturing them on why they are foolish by not participating in the scheme. The Department would find out why people are perhaps being smart by not participating in it in its current form. The scheme's terms are unworkable for people in hill areas. The figure of 15 applicants from Connamara from almost 6,000 herd owners, eight months after the scheme began, proves my point. The Minister should not try to sell me the line that the people are not smart enough to get in on the scheme or are somehow reluctant to participate. That is not true.
I hope nothing I said suggested I did not regard Connemara as the most progressive area or the farmers there as the most progressive in the country. It goes without saying this is the case. However, it is not the job of the Department officials involved in approving applications to be actively involved in the promotion of the scheme. It is up to the REPS planners and we have licensed and approved private contractors in this regard.
It is also the job of Teagasc to maximise farm incomes by availing of any EU initiatives. This scheme is an EU initiative and it is simply a case of people and public representatives asking Teagasc to give it priority. I attended a meeting in my county where over 400 certificates were given to people who participated in REPS courses. I see a massive uptake in the participation in the scheme and there has been a huge change in attitudes in the last six months. The Deputy should contact his CAO and the local regional section.
On the social welfare issue, my Department is very anxious to facilitate the position whereby REPS payments would not be means assessable for social welfare. That is the intention and my Department will do whatever it can in conjunction with the Department of Social Welfare.
When will we get a firm decision in writing on that issue? Until we get that regulation written by the Minister for Social Welfare——
Put it to the Minister for Social Welfare.
We have put down questions, but they have not been answered. If somebody comes into my clinic, I tell him I have not seen a regulation from the Minister for Social Welfare exempting REPS. Until that is done, the social welfare officer has no choice but to assess it as income. This is the problem. I accept that the scheme suits the low land, but it does not suit hill farmers who share commonage. This is the crux of the matter and also where the Department comes in. The Department designed the scheme, but others implement it. It is no good trying to sell something to people who will not buy it because it is not worth buying.
I will be absolutely clear on this matter. My predecessor negotiated the terms of REPS in Brussels. It is similar to Leader and other schemes in that it is an EU initiative. It is a little rich to blame me for the red tape attaching to the scheme. The Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan, has set up an advisory group and has invited the farm organisations to consider on a consultative basis what way we can move forward. There is no point in the Deputy lecturing me about the shortcomings of the scheme when his party colleague negotiated it.
Hill farmers rarely get an innings in this place. It is not necessarily that useful to talk to farm organisations which are totally dominated by lowland farmers. The Minister came into office six months ago and he now knows——
There is a pick up in the scheme.
In the lowland areas.
There is more confidence in this Minister.
It is not being taken up in my area and it is not being taken up in the Deputy's area either.
What is the Deputy doing to promote the scheme in his area?
If somebody asked me if he should join the scheme and whether he will be assessed for the means test, I would have to say, as of now, that he will be assessed. It is the only honest answer I could give. If he asked me about the various regulations of the scheme, including the commonage aspect, I would have to outline the position as it is written in the scheme. I cannot give it any other way and I cannot promote something which will not be in a farmer's interest. This is the point I am trying to get across. The scheme as it stands is not in the farmer's interest, but it could be easily made so.
I refute that point. Unlike the CFP and headage schemes, where there is a clear limit to Structural Funds, this does not come into the Structural Funds area. We can draw down up to £230 million whereby 40,000 farmers can avail of this scheme. It has particular benefits for the west. I do not have, and nor do I claim, any political ownership of this scheme. However, anything which adds to farmers' incomes, with a minor variation to their farming practice, is something which we must all actively foster and support.
Yes.
I do not agree with any comments made by Deputies who would advise farmers not to participate in the scheme.
A final brief question from Deputy Molloy. The Deputy cannot dominate the meeting. He has received a reasonable reply to all his questions.
The Minister should refer to the difficulty created by the calculation of income for social welfare purposes, particularly in western counties. Perhaps he would be specific. It is taken into account and it is a disincentive to farmers in those areas.
Is the Minister's Department concerned about over-grazing which is largely attributed to generous EU schemes for mountain sheep? Has he had consultations with the Minister for the Environment about the effects of over-grazing? Does he agree with reports that the damage is irreparable, that it could have serious long term environmental problems and that it is allegedly already affecting the quality of drinking water in many areas of the west? Recent publicity about the Ballycroy system in Mayo following the failure of waters in that group scheme to pass the EU drinking water requirements is evidence of that. This issue is coming to the fore. There is a link between environmental farming and the effect it may have on other aspects of life, for example, drinking water. The fact is that damage to these mountainous areas cannot be repaired.
The Deputy asked about the situation in relation to the REPS and social welfare. I was answering questions at a recent function when I was handed a note by one of my civil servants which said that the clear intention of our Department is to ensure that REPS payments would not be means assessible for social welfare. I am not the Minister for Social Welfare and it would be irresponsible of me to give a commitment on that. However, I will ask the Minister to bring clarity to this matter. There is clearly total support from my Department that it would not be included.
That is not an answer.
It is an answer but it might not be what the Deputy wants.
It is not a policy.
If I brought an appeal to the social welfare appeals office it would have to rule against me and take REPS into account.
I am not sure that is the case.
It is the case. There is no regulation about it.
It can make a decision one way or the other.
Surely it is the Government's responsibility to make such a decision. Until that decision is made no social welfare officer or appeals officer could rule in one's favour on that issue.
It is a matter for the Government.
I gave the factual position.
If that does not constitute an answer I do not know what does.
Nothing happened.
I said I will take the matter up with the Minister. I want to be straight with the committee. I would never mislead members.
I share the Deputy's concerns about over-grazing. The Department has been lobbied strongly by environmental groups who believe that permanent damage is being done. In that regard an evaluation study is being carried out on headage. The terms of reference include the question of over-grazing. We have appointed consultants in this regard and we are obliged by Europe to carry out this study because it wants to cut back on its commitment to headage. They believe it is not an effective way of assisting farmers. It is a social welfare type of scheme rather than a return on investment type of scheme. That would have clear dangers for the west because it could mean that financial life support systems to keep the maximum number of family farms in rural Europe would be dismantled. Given the budgetary pressure on the CAP I will be vigilant. However, there is a real issue of over-grazing that can be examined. Not being from the west, I am interested in learning about this and the problems with the water. I would be anxious to take that up at the earliest possible date.
Deputy Molloy is right. There are major problems in relation to water schemes and we must strike a balance. The farmers, on the one hand, will have to protect the water while, on the other hand, the people using the water supplies will have to protect it. One has to take account of the people living there for 52 weeks of the year and not those who use it for one month in the year.
Like myself.
There are many people like the Minister.
Is the Minister considering living there?
I have a holiday home there.
I welcome the Deputy's comments. I await the evaluation study and I am anxious that the Department would not contribute to incentives that result in over-grazing. We will look at the modification of the headage and other schemes to resolve that problem.
We will deal with subheads M1 and N.
Subhead M1 is about farm investments which are of concern to Deputies. Leader is involved. It is a scheme with nationwide coverage — under Leader II we availed of £77 million over five years. M8 covers research grants for the development of the food sector. That is greatly increase from £2.3 million to £6.5 million. I referred to this in my speech. There are also marketing schemes, ESAs, milk cessation schemes and so forth. Subhead N refers to Appropriations-in-aid, that is, the moneys we receive from Brussels. They are outlined in the appendix circulated to the committee.
The Minister will be aware of many groups that were not successful in getting into the Leader II programe at full status and were termed pre-developmental. Will the Minister ensure, if possible, that where those groups can draw up new programmes, perhaps after amalgamating with other groups, they be allowed into the full Leader II programme as soon as possible? We hear about a timescale of six to 12 months whereas some of the groups would be ready to commence the full Leader II programme within weeks, months at most, and should not be required to wait the full 12 months. Is there a policy on that?
We hope to have a major launch of Leader II shortly — Deputy Byrne will be pleased to hear that this will provide suitable photo opportunities for the Minister and the Minister of State — to sign formal contracts with over 40 Leader groups. All 16 of the Leader I groups are among the majority of those who are at the full developmental stage of Leader II. There is another group that has capacity building to carry out in order to get up and running. There was a huge number of fragmented applications from County Cork but since the announcement of sanction of Leader II there has been progress in amalgamating and merging some of them. This will facilitate the earliest possible date of going from the pre-capacity stage into the full developmental stage. I hope it will be a matter of weeks and months rather than a year before they go into category 2. I am aware of the situation in Mallow, Black-water and adjoining areas in east Cork and I will ask that it be done as soon as possible. I dictated a memo to that effect to the assistant secretary this morning.
There have been newspaper reports that there will be tightening of the criteria for Leader. I am all in favour of proper spending of money and accountability. However, my experience leads me to believe that, by the time we are finished with "tightening up", we will wind up with a token bottom up approach and something so hamstrung from the top that it will not be a bottom up approach any more. We have to be aware of this difficulty. I accept that some people might misuse freedom but, in the interests of the great number of people who will act fairly and with probity in these affairs, the Minister must give them the freedom, even if it means some individuals might get away with doing something they should not. Otherwise, we will destroy this scheme, as we have destroyed so many more schemes, with red tape, regulations and lack of freedom. It will become the antithesis of what it is meant to be and it will become a scheme working from the top down.
While I appreciate the Deputy's concerns, the Government has studied in detail the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on Leader I. I cannot condone grants being given to projects that should not have been grant-aided. There were general criticisms of the laxity of the controls that were in place. We have hired a consultant to be involved in an independent, ongoing monitoring role in Leader II. We are hiring, recruiting and training several special full-time investigators and inspectors to ensure that the scheme is properly adhered to. The flexibility clause, whereby Leader groups can give grants for anything they like, has been abolished and the expenditure of £77 million to public funds requires public scrutiny. We have ADM and we have county enterprise boards. I am determined that Leader will survive and prosper. The quickest way to undermine Leader is to have lower transparency criteria accountability and so on. The Comptroller and Auditor General has a role to play. This will not take from the developmental nature of Leader and the bottom up development but it would be wrong to ignore the signals. If my successor or I did not rectify the failings of Leader I which were pointed out it would be negligent.
I am glad to hear the Minister say there has to be accountability. I pointed out many things to the Minister in the last week and I am waiting to see what develops before I make any further comment. There has to be accountability and the only people I hear complaining in the newspapers are those who seem to be worried at the prospects. If State money is involved somebody must be accountable. That is not to say we have to make the regulations so severe that nobody can qualify for grant-aid. When will the guidelines for Leader II, as to who will qualify, be in place?
The guidelines are in place. We are now at the stage, prior to formal launch in the next few weeks, where we are negotiating formal contracts with the Leader groups. I am aware of the situation in Mayo and I am anxious that the existing Leader group and the unsuccessful Leader group would be united. In that regard, the Deputy's representations have been borne in mind and I am anxious that Leader, wherever it is, will have the maximum level of involvement of all parties and types of opinion and local community support: that is the way it will be most successful.
We will now discuss subheads A1 to E on Forestry.
We have set outselves ambitious targets planting up to 30,000 hectares. We have a 20 year development plan for the forestry industry, which will be published later this year. It is a priority of mine. We will welcome any input from Deputies. There has been a problem with delays in approval for afforestation grants. The planting season runs from the autumn to April. We are now finished with grants for the planting season for last spring. Before we enter the new one, I want the facility in place to approve grants within one month of application. That is my target. We will put the necessary staff and other resources in place to meet this and it is an absolute commitment to the charter. This should deal with some of the problems.
We are anxious to promote farm forestry. In some areas, forestry is very controversial and farmers are opposed to forestry. We are setting up a farm forestry forum, which will look at how to take a more consensual approach to farm forestry, particularly in the west of Ireland. I do not accept that farm forestry will denude rural Ireland of its population. If one looks at the downstream jobs, not only of timber and wood processing but also the jobs in wood residues such as Masonite, this is a good news story. We have the best climate in Europe to grow forests; we have the most generous grants; and we are importing £92 million worth of timber products this year. Look at the 20 to 25 year demand for timber in Europe where timber production is dropping. The demands of the paper milling and furniture construction industries require more planting of trees. We must do this and get the varieties of trees in line with demand. This is potentially a big success story in the economy.
I have had an interest in forestry over the years. I represented people in the forestry industry, which gave me an opportunity to move from county to county and see exactly what was happening. I saw the demise of Coillte which had the opportunity to be one of our major employers. Instead of that, from 1989 — I am sorry Deputy Molloy is not here as he was responsible at that time for the Department——
He is gone to pray.
He is gone to pray? He may need it. I have already taken Deputy Molloy to task on this issue. We were given figures that the number employed in forestry increasing but they were, effectively, decreasing and the facts were there for all to see. How many are now employed in Coillte? One thing about forestry — and it is quite evident in most countries and in particular along the border — is that the black economy is rampant. Coillte has more or less become a holding company rather than a company developing the forestry industry and employing people, as it once did. It paid off the people who worked in the forests and we ended up with in some forests one forester and one forestry worker, whereas the ratio across the country was nearly two forest workers to one member of management or forester. There is major investment in forestry but the care, the maintenance, the fencing and the thinning is being neglected because corners were cut. Harvesting is contracted out. We have the ridiculous situation of contractors from Northern Ireland coming into the forests, taking out the timber, processing it and then Coillte buys it back off them, while putting fences around its forests.
In certain parts of rural Ireland one will not get inward investment, a factory or people to invest in forestry. A culture existed where small farmers worked in the forests and were able to maintain a family and have a reasonable living. We are denuding the rural areas of their population. The rot set in during 1989, when Deputy Molloy was in office. It should be looked at.
I can confirm that staff numbers in Coillte have dropped from 2,500 in 1989 to 1,500 now and this bears out what the Deputy said. I look at Coillte from a number of respects. First, it is 100 per cent State owned. If we nurture and develop Coillte properly there is a possibility that we could have a £1 billion asset owned by the taxpayer by the turn of the century. Their annual report was published yesterday and detailed that profits have gone from £1 million to £11 million. There was overheating of timber prices and some one off factors.
I am concerned at reports about a lack of fencing. The yields of some of the forests would suggest a lack of maintenance and so on. I hope that they will not be penny wise and pound foolish. It is my job to enhance the value of Coillte because it is owned by the taxpayer and the dividend will come to the State. I also have to look at forest roads and other such matters. As long as I am Minister any rationalisation will be done on an entirely voluntary basis and with the agreement of the unions involved. There are no strong arm tactics here.
The planting level is about 12,000 hectares a year which would be dependent on land acquisition costs, which have gone up 70 per cent. Land prices generally have gone up by about 40 per cent over recent years. Where there is a family farm situation — for example, in the west of Ireland — and it is the only neighbouring farm they can buy, I am anxious that Coillte would be sensitive and not be a land grabber. Overall I want to strengthen and consolidate Coillte, its balance sheet and the security of its employees. I do not want black economy type situations.
Given the Deputy's knowledge and background, I would welcome any input into the 20 year development plan. We would be happy to discuss that with the Deputy to see how we can ensure that Coillte will develop. I want to make it clear that I am pro Coillte and its opportunities. It has the necessary scale. We would not have got Masonite, which is a £90 million investment with 15 acres of factories and over 350 jobs. It is a massive development in Carrick-on-Shannon. It would not have happened if we had not been able to guarantee the continuity of timber supply. There are advantages in Coillte and I do not want to see it privatised. I hope I have given some indication of my support for Coillte.
What is the figure for forestry workers?
I will get that for the Deputy.
I was anxious to ask a question on salaries and allowances since it is also of concern at subhead A.1. This has nothing to do with growing or felling trees but rather to do with the Minister's own situation. I recently read a newspaper report which suggested that the Minister had engaged Larry Sheedy as a PR person. It also suggested that Larry Sheedy is retained by some co-ops and therefore——
That has nothing to do with this committee.
It has, because some of the money which goes to pay Larry Sheedy probably comes out of the Forestry Vote as well as Agriculture and Food. I will ask the question now in any event. It seems to me that there is conflict of interest and I am delighted to give the Minister this opportunity to tell us whether there is or is not. Larry Sheedy has been retained by co-ops. He has not been retained by other co-ops. Anyone suggesting there would not be a conflict of interest would not be on the ball. I want to give the Minister an opportunity to tell me that there is not a conflict of interest.
I remind Deputy Byrne to refrain from discussing private indviduals when they are not here to defend themselves.
I am sure the Minister will defend them quite well. I will not mention any more names, Sir — a prospective Ceann Comhairle, I might add.
I want to ask the Minister about programme managers. I am sure some of the money from the Forestry Vote goes to pay them. The Minister is very lucky because I hear he has two programme managers, unlike other Departments. There are two people within his Department — the chairman has asked me not to name them and I will not — who are on programme manager salaries. I hope the Minister can deny it because if he has two programme managers that would cause serious problems for all of us.
I can tell Deputy Fitzgerald that there are 1,000 forestry workers and 500 technical and administration staff.
This is outrageous nonsense from Deputy Byrne in relation to Larry Sheedy. I have a very effective PR operation into which Mr. Sheedy has a minimal input. It is a standard practice. I have to give credit to the information officer in the Department. My programme manager, Mr. Miley, was head of the information section of Teagasc. He moved from the public sector and is a former journalist. They form the back-bone of my PR team, but I have a fair input into it myself.
I noticed that.
In relation to Mr. Sheedy, the situation is that, in the same way that Drury Communications had this contract before, he occasionally writes speeches for me. It is the same for every Minister.
He did not do any good for the last Minister.
There is absolutely no conflict. He does not have any policy role. He works for An Bord Bia. Sheedy Communications has a number of names attached to it. His is the largest agricultural PR company in the country. He has various contracts and does not advise me on policy. The only things in which he has been involved are the charter and set piece events where he would just organise the photographs and some of the invites. He is not actually involved in any serious way.
Can the Minister tell me that there is absolutely no conflict of interests?
Absolutely none and there is no question of it. On the second point, I do not have two programme managers.
What does the Minister call the other?
I have a special adviser, Tom Tynan, and that is the same as any other Cabinet Minister.
What about Danny Carroll?
Danny Carroll was Deputy Joe Walsh's programme manager. He is not my programme manager.
Michael Miley.
Michael Miley is my programme manager and Tom Tynan is my special adviser. Danny Carroll is now principal officer in the management services unit and has been seconded from being programme manager. He has my full confidence as well. I would not like to indicate that I am critical of him in any way just because he was Deputy Joe Walsh's programme manager. The Government decision was to select people from outside the Civil Service.
I have the information I required.
I was glad to hear that Coillte made £11 million last year. Would there be any possibility that Mayo County Council would be given £1 million of that for the roads they destroyed in the county? They make no contribution to the funding of the county council. We are having a serious problem with the damage the timber they are taking out of the county is doing to roads. In one case I put money into a road and before the winter was out it was wiped away because of the big heavy lorries. If the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry is planning a second factory for the country in the future, I hope it will be in County Mayo, especially when one considers the amount of timber coming out of that county. I ask the Minister to give County Mayo serious consideration. We were promised by the last Government that there would be a second factory and I hope that Mayo will be chosen as the venue.
I will of course bear the Deputy's representations in mind. I am anxious to ensure his re-election and that of his two party colleagues, so I would be happy to do anything I can to help Mayo in that regard. There is no project pending. I do not know what expectations may have been raised by the last Government. Masonite, Medite and Louisiana Pacific will use the majority of timber residues and that deals with the national strategy.
The situation with county roads is twofold. It would not be the case that Coillte would be giving money to any local authority directly. While it is acknowledged that damage is done arising from the forestry industry, the forestry industry would not be exclusively responsible. My colleague, the Minister for the Environment, has responsibility in this area. He is coming to Cabinet shortly with special measures to deal with the national problem of county roads and I have every confidence in his proposals resolving that problem in due course. Some of Coillte's profits, in conjunction with my Department, will fund building forestry roads which are specifically required for forestry purposes. I can actually see some of the profits not being repeated in the next few years because of that investment.
Will it not be possible, Minister——
We agreed to conclude at 6 p.m. I thank the Minister and Members for their contributions to today's debate on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. The Select Committee meets again next Wednesday, 31 May 1995 at 3 p.m. to discuss the Estimate for the Department of Tourism and Trade.
The Select Committee adjourned at 6.02 p.m.
