I apologise for our late start which arose because some Members had two or three different committees to attend. I welcome the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates, and his officials to this meeting to consider the Estimates for his Department. I welcome Mr. Tom Arnold, Mr. Brendan Gleeson and Mr. Noel Molloy. The Minister has 20 minutes to make his opening statement.
Estimates 1996.
Vote 31: Agriculture, Food and Forestry.
I am pleased to present the 1996 Estimates for the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry to the committee. I want to briefly sketch the background against which the 1996 Estimate for my Department was framed and I will then comment on the elements which I consider of most interest to Deputies. We will consider it in detail later on.
Last year was a good one for Irish agriculture. Aggregate farm income increased by almost 8 per cent, the fourth consecutive year of growth in farm incomes. The two main sectors, milk and beef, performed well in 1995, helped by an improved international market for beef and a buoyant world market for dairy products. In the cattle sector, volumes increased by 6 per cent and despite some downward pressure on prices, the value of output increased by over 3 per cent. Milk producers had a particularly good year with output value rising by 5.6 per cent, principally due to strong prices throughout the year. Output values in both the cereal and pig sector recovered strongly in 1995, with increases of 48 per cent for cereals and 16 per cent for pigs. There was a 12 per cent increase to £750 million in the level of direct payments to farmers in 1995. Irish farmers have benefited enormously from the reform of the CAP, with the level of direct income support over 84 per cent higher than in 1992.
The prospects for 1996 are uncertain. The outlook for the pig sector appears positive and sheep producers have enjoyed a good year to date. However, the BSE crisis has created problems in the beef sector and a drop in output value is now almost certain. There is also some downward pressure on milk prices following exceptionally strong dairy market conditions throughout 1995. Direct income payments will continue to make a significant contribution to farmers' incomes this year and, in addition to normal direct income entitlements, farmers will, subject to the decision by the European Council of Agriculture Ministers, receive additional compensation payments for income losses arising out of the BSE crisis. Direct income payments will continue to make a significant contribution to farmers' income this year and, in addition to normal direct income entitlements, farmers will, subject to the decision by the Council of Agriculture Ministers, receive additional compensation payments for income loss arising from the BSE crisis. The Commission has made a proposal on this to the Council and in the negotiations later this month I will seek to have the compensation to be made available to Ireland maximised. The likelihood is that, for reasons beyond our control, farm incomes will decline in 1996 for the first time since 1991. However, every effort will continue to be made to minimise the impact on the farming sector this year.
The estimated gross expenditure for the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Vote 31, for 1996 is £613.796 million. This represents an increase of 6 per cent over the provisional outturn for 1995. When Appropriations-in-aid are taken into account, the net expenditure for 1996 is estimated at £326.063 million, an increase of 14 per cent. As in previous years, these Estimates do not include either FEOGA guarantee measures which are fully funded by the EU budget or the capital cost of operating intervention and other market support schemes. Total expenditure under these headings in 1995 amounted to approximately £1.2 billion and a similar level of expenditure is expected in 1996. It is clearly not possible to discuss in great detail all the elements of the Estimate before the committee. I will, accordingly, focus on a number of more significant items in the Estimate, although I will be happy to deal with any specific items Deputies may wish to raise.
1996 is the final year of my Department's current three year administrative budget agreement with the Department of Finance. The administrative budget covers items such as salaries, travel costs, office accommodation and equipment, telephones and postage. In 1996, the administrative budget has been increased by 4 per cent to £117.229 million. This increase is accounted for in the main by salary increases arising from the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. It also includes a once off provision in 1996 of £655,000, for the additional administrative costs arising from the EU Presidency in 1996.
I also take this opportunity to mention the Charter of Rights for Farmers, which I launched in April 1995. During the charter's first year of operation we made significant improvements in the way my Department delivers its services. Payment targets for various schemes have largely been met, many well ahead of schedule. The independent appeals unit promised in the charter was established on schedule last November, providing an avenue for aggrieved farrners to have departmental decisions on premia and headage schemes reconsidered. A major programme to refurbish local offices is well under way. The contract for the provision of an upgraded telephone system for local offices has been placed, and it is expected the work will be completed in the next few months.
Prior to the publication of the charter the Department's local offices were closed in the afternoons. During the past year, in line with a commitment in the charter, farmers had access to local offices in the afternoons. The committee will be aware that due to an industrial dispute with one of the unions these offices were again closed in the afternoon for a period. We have now settled this dispute, and local offices are once again open in the afternoon. The dispute also delayed the introduction of the one stop shop facility promised in the charter. Now that the dispute has been settled, it is my intention to have this facility in place in the latter half of the year.
The provision for 1996 under subhead C2 is £49.7 million. The committee will be aware that following a review in 1995 of the effectiveness of the bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis eradication schemes, a restructured scheme was launched on 1 April 1996. The new arrangements place the onus of arranging and paying for the first herd test each year on the farmer. The State will carry the administrative and operational costs of the scheme, the costs of any additional herd tests required during the year and compensation costs. While farmers will be liable for additional testing costs of about £14 million per year, this will be offset by a reduction in the disease levy to £10 million per annum. For 1996, it is expected that a reduction of about £7 million in gross expenditure will result.
The national development strategy for the food industry which I launched last year is now well under way and progressing satisfactorily. The overall aim of the strategy is to build a strong market led, innovative industry by the turn of the century. It is being implemented through the food sub programme of the operational programme for industry with the aid of EU and national funds totalling £283 million. So far, the industry take up of these funds has been very encouraging and by the end of 1995, grants amounting to £52 million or 18 per cent of the total available assistance had been allocated to a wide range of projects covering all aspects and sectors of the industry.
The Estimates which I am presenting today reflect two important elements of the food sub programme — those relating to marketing and promotion, and Institutional Research and Development, which are being implemented respectively by An Bord Bia and my Department. In subhead H1 provision is made for the sum of £7.075 million as grant-in-aid for An Bord Bia. This represents the normal Exchequer contribution, as provided for in the An Bord Bia Act, 1994, towards the cost of the board's activities, and also the national contribution towards the marketing and promotion measure of the food sub programme. The latter will generate EU funds amounting to £9.541 million, bringing the board's income from public funds in 1996 to £16.616 million.
An Bord Bia was established in 1994 as a specialised food promotion agency and charged with the task of promoting, assisting and developing the marketing of Irish food. Its five year market development strategy published last year illustrates how the board will fulfil that remit. The aim is to increase Irish food and drink exports from £4.3 billion in 1994 to £7 billion by 1999. Towards this end, a comprehensive programme of activities and services, including two company grant schemes, has been put in place. A central element in the board's plan is the development of links between the various segments of the food industry, from the producer to the ultimate consumer. The appointment to the board last year of two representatives of farming organisations and the arrangements I am currently making to appoint consumer representatives to it, will greatly facilitate that process. In subhead M10, a sum of £6.537 million is provided for non commissioned food research. This is "public good" research which is neither commissioned nor carried out by individual firrns, the results of which will be made publicly available. The funding is being made available under measure 3 of the food sub programme, and 75 per cent of the cost will be met by the EU from the European Regional Development Fund. As with other European Regional Development Fund measures, that contribution is provided for in the Government's Exchequer receipts.
This funding will be used to enable research institutions including Teagasc and the universities to undertake appropriate research either individually or collaboratively. A high level committee, which includes a number of industry representatives, has been established in my Department to guide the institutions in regard to the type of research to be undertaken and to advise me on the selection of projects to be aided. I am confident these two measures will make a substantial contribution to the development of the food industry.
Deputies will note, with some surprise, that the provision for L1 has fallen from almost £27.5 million in 1995 to £19.35 million for the current year. This reflects that when this year's Estimates were being prepared, there was every expectation there would be little or no buying in to intervention and that existing stock levels would be further reduced. The recent BSE scare has, however, necessitated a revision of our expectations in regard to beef, and within the past few weeks we have also seen resumed purchasing of butter and skimmed milk powder into storage as international markets have become less buoyant. While the dairy market can be expected to stabilise in the medium term, it is difficult to be clear about the prospects for beef. Undoubtedly markets will recover. The question is when and, unfortunately, the consumer is unlikely to be very positive this year. I will, therefore, keep this subhead under close review.
Last year, I dealt at some length with the substantial improvements which my Department made to its control systems, with the aim of further protecting the interests of the EU and minimising the possibility of disallowances. To this end, a special provision of £500,000 has been made in the administrative budget for 1996 which will allow me to maintain and strengthen the full range of controls which my Department has put in place in recent years. It will also contribute significantly towards ensuring that the highest standards of accountability are employed as regards future CAP expenditure.
On the disallowances imposed on my Department by the Commission on 27 March this year, these relate primarily to activities in 1990 and 1991 and the Commission acknowledged the improvement in control systems since then in its final decision. The disallowances amount to £71.982 million and will be charged to subhead L2. A Supplementary Estimate will be required later in the year for this purpose. I am at present seeking legal advice on a challenge to the Commission decision. When I have considered this advice, I will make a recommendation to the Government as to whether a challenge should be made. In the event of a successful challenge, the money will be returned to the Exchequer.
In 1996, for the first time, the Vote for Forestry has been merged with the Vote for Agriculture and Food. The provision in the Vote for Forestry amounts to £58.5 million. The greater part of this is in subhead L3 which priovides grant assistance mainly for afforestation. The sum of £9.2 million is provided in subhead M7 for the promotion of forestry development under the terms of the Operational Programme for Agriculture, Rural Development and Forestry, 1994-1999. Training, harvesting equipment, woodland improvement and woodland reconstitution are among the main areas for which grant assistance is available.
Ireland's forestry sector has made great strides in recent years. Farmer participation in afforestation has increased dramatically in recent years and is estimated at 65 per cent in 1996. Planting levels are high, and we have also succeeded in attracting flagship industrial forestry projects such as the Oriented Strand Board plant in Waterford, the Masonite plant in Leitrim, and the doubling of capacity at Medite's plant in Clonmel. When all of these are in full production, over 1,000 jobs will be provided. The provisions which I am making for 1996 are laying the foundation for new employment creating projects into the next century. In this regard, I am currently in the process of bringing to the Government a strategy for the forestry sector which will guide the development of the entire sector. I expect that this strategy will be approved in the near future.
The rural environment protection scheme is one of the measures accompanying CAP reform which is now proving very popular with Irish farmers. This is illustrated by an increase of 46 per cent to more than £41.5 million in the provision for subhead L4 in 1996. A total of 13,600 farmers had, by early May this year, been paid almost £48 million since the scheme began in 1994. REPS aims to have farmers adopt environmentally friendly farming practices. One of the principal objectives is to avoid pollution. To this end, the REPS specification has recently been revised and places great emphasis on the proper management of farm waste. If farmers follow their REPS plan in accordance with the revised specification, the risk of pollution will be greatly minimised.
Early retirement is another of the schemes accompanying CAP reform which is proving highly successful. The provision of over £40 million in 1996 reflects the high level of demand for the scheme and a 2.8 per cent increase in the pension rate from 1 January 1996. By the end of 1995 over 3,700 farmers were receiving pensions under the scheme, which at present amount on average to £9,360 per annum. A similar number of young farmers had received land as a result of the scheme, and while the average farm size released under the scheme was 31 hectares, after enlargement this was increased to 49.8 hectares. I am confident that this scheme will contribute significantly to the general structural improvement of Irish farms and at the same time help to maintain the rural population.
Farm investment schemes are covered under subheads M1 and M3. Subhead M1 covers on-farm investment measures under the Operational Programme for Agriculture, Rural Development and Forestry, 1994-1999; outstanding work under the Control of Farmyard Pollution Scheme 1989-1994; and ongoing expenditure arising under existing farm plans under the farm improvement programme.
Subhead M2 covers the milk quota restructuring scheme and the installation aid scheme for young farmers. Due to unprecedented demand for aid under the CFP Scheme, which exceeded available resources, I was obliged to suspend the scheme on 27 April 1995 when some 18,500 applications had been received. Following negotiations with the Minister for Finance and the European Commission, revised funding arrangements were put in place to meet potential demand. These involved the transfer of additional resources from elsewhere in the operational programme, as well as the bringing forward of substantial funds to 1996 from later years in the programme.
My Department was, therefore, able to expedite payments in 1995 and 1996 to existing approved applicants as investment works were carried out, and also to issue approvals to outstanding applications on hands, on the understanding that the grants in such cases would be paid in 1997 when further funds became available. Up to the end of April 1996, some 9,800 farmers had been approved to carry out investment works under the scheme, with a grant commitment of some £87 million.
The 1996 provision for aid to farmers in certain less favoured areas, subhead M4, is £115.399 million. This covers headage payments on cattle, sheep, goats and equines. In addition, the costs of the reclassification of disadvantaged areas approved by the Commission in late 1995, and of the recent extension of non-disadvantaged areas, will be paid from the 1996 Estimate. Any other adjustments to the scheme, including any extension of headage to deer, will have to be met from within the existing financial envelope for headage and will be considered in the context of the overall review of those arrangements.
Deputies will note that the provision for headage in 1996 has been reduced by £3 million. This arises because of the inclusion in 1995 of a provision of £10 million to enable my Department to meet its Programme for Competitiveness and Work commitment to move progressively to a situation where 100 per cent of all valid applications are paid in the year of application, and also from the high level of arrears from previous years paid in 1995 —£21 million. Deputies are aware that this commitment was met in 1995, a full year earlier than targeted. The reduced provision in 1996 is a natural consequence of reducing the volume of arrears —£9.3 million — which in 1996 arise from query cases which could not be processed last year.
I commend the Estimate for Vote 31 — Agriculture, Food and Forestry — to the committee and I will answer any detailed queries about matters to which I have not alluded.
I thank the Minister for keeping his address within the time schedule. It is very important that we maximise the time available to debate the subheads. Is the programme of business agreed? Agreed. I call on Deputy Cowen, the spokesperson for the Fianna Fáil Party, to make his opening statement.
I wish to raise a number of issues which can perhaps be discussed in greater detail during the debate on individual subheads.
The revised Estimates are in line with those of previous years. There are some upward and downward incremental changes. The Estimates do not reflect the fact that we are in a difficult situation regarding BSE and the impact this will have on our food industry in general. The Minister made reference to the fact that it will impact on farm incomes during the current year and that the buoyancy experienced in previous years will be absent in the coming months, even among dairy farmers who have seen reductions in the price of milk. It is disappointing that the Estimates do not reflect that we have been trying to grapple with the problem of BSE for over two months.
It is amazing that the 1996 Estimate for An Bord Bia provides for a total expenditure of £16.6 million. Last year An Bord Bia spent £17 million, with no reference to problems with BSE. Ireland has a totally export-oriented agricultural economy and industry and we are witnessing unprecedented reductions in consumption in the EU. Many international markets are also closed to us in this regard. Given that this industry represents 10 per cent of GNP, one would expect that this issue would be given priority treatment by the Government and that this would be reflected in the revised Estimates. Unfortunately that is not the case.
The Minister, who is in the midst of an unprecedented crisis regarding the beef industry, made a somewhat "as you go" presentation. The Estimates contain no indication as to whether the Government is prepared to make resources available to the primary production sector, where the Minister is currently grappling with compensation problems at EU level. The Estimates also fail to consider resources within our remit or the allocation of extra resources to see if we might address the problem. Based on the Minister's comments and a perusal of the revised Estimates vis-�-visprevious years, there is an actual drop in expenditure relating to An Bord Bia at a time when, as far as those involved in the industry are concerned, an export marketing drive is a prerequisite to try to meet the serious problems we face.
Another issue I wish to raise in the short time available is the question of on-farm investment schemes. Again there is a reduction in the Estimates in relation to such schemes. Everyone realises that environmental issues are becoming significant in terms of the perception of the food industry. The control of farmyard pollution scheme was suspended in June 1995 and there is no commitment in the Estimates to boost that programme so that the 18,500 eligible farmers will obtain grant approval in the amounts one would expect. In late 1995 the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry informed over 6,000 of those farmers that they can expect payment in 1997. I am not aware of any grant scheme in any other area of Government administration where approval is given and payment promised for one calendar year after completion of the work involved.
Given the income problems experienced by farmers, one would have expected a significant increase in this part of the Estimate. Unfortunately there is none. It appears there has been no change in the Minister's policy since he sought to deal with the question of those 18,500 applications last June. There has been no increase in resources and farmers need not expect expedition regarding payments, despite the fact that this is a critical issue in terms of the perception of our food industry and the quality of our primary production. It is also unfortunate that, probably for the first time in 40 years, there is not a stand alone on-farm investment scheme in the Estimate. Unless a person is involved in a REPS, he has no prospect of obtaining farm development grants for building sheds or improving buildings. We get plenty of lectures at official and ministerial level about the growing competitiveness of the agribusiness sector and the need for agriculture to become more competitive, yet there is a failure at national level to provide resources to assist farmers whose viability is under threat to achieve and maintain that competitiveness. It is a glaring omission from the Estimate.
A great deal of lip service is being paid to the importance of research. The 1995 Estimate suggested £6.5 million would be spent on institutional research. The outturn for 1995 was £4,083,000. Research funds of more than £1 million granted to Teagasc were sent back by Teagasc last year because the personnel required to do the research were not approved by the Department of Finance when Teagasc sought to employ them. The craziness of the situation is that those people would have been paid out of that £1 million allocation.
There is an ongoing, circular argument because of the restrictive mandate imposed on Teagasc since its formation in 1988. People cannot be appointed to do this research without the prior approval of the Department of Finance. The Department, in its usual way, is saying no despite the fact the money is available from the research funds allocated to Teagasc. Money is going around in a circle and being handed back by the State agency given the statutory mandate to carry out what everybody believes is necessary research. The work is not done because these housekeeping arrangements cannot be sorted out between the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry; Teagasc and the Department of Finance.
That says more about the sense of "chassis" is certain areas of the administration of this Department than anything else. We have a serious crisis on our hands as markets are closed all over the world. We are the biggest exporter of beef in the northern hemisphere and we are reducing the allocation to our export marketing arm, An Bord Bia, and failing to spend the paltry amounts of money we provide for institutional research because we cannot get the Department of Finance to arrange for the appointment of the required personnel.
When we strip the fine sentiments of successive speeches from this Administration, it is obvious — and unfortunate — that it is not capable of making simple political decisions to ensure simple policy objectives are attained. According to the Minister's speech, many bad things will happen to Irish agriculture which are "outside our control". When a great deal of benign, good and buoyant things happened in Irish agriculture after December 1994, this Minister was very quick to point out he was totally responsible for them because of his vibrant, zealous and workmanlike performance. Now, suddenly, when things are not going our way they are "outside our control". While there is an element of truth in what the Minister said — as there is an element of truth in everything he says — there is a question about whether it is the whole truth. I suppose politics is about telling one's own version of the truth.
This revised Estimate does not take into account the very turbulent issues affecting Irish agriculture. It is another case of the system being unable to respond in an imaginative way by providing the necessary resources to solve many of the problems which show every indication of overwhelming us.
This consideration of the Estimate by this committee is part of what we are informed is Dáil reform. The fact that only four or five of us are considering this hugely important Estimate for an area which is in a disastrous situation at the moment is an indication that Dáil reform is not working. The nature of the timetable which you had to impose and to which we had to agree — because we cannot do anything about it — means there cannot be any real debate on overall policy. All we can do is deal with different bits and pieces of the Estimate. That is a pity because this Estimate has some very unusual features this year which deserve to be fully debated in the Dáil. However, that possibility does not seem to arise.
This revised Estimate was published in February after the budget. It does not reflect two matters of enormous importance since then — the BSE problem and its huge and horrendous consequences; and the huge changes apparently being made within the Department, consequent on the fines imposed on it in March or April. The changes are fundamental and of great importance. It is a pity the Minister did not advert to that in his necessarily brief opening statement — he should do so if he has the opportunity in another part of this proceeding.
The Minister for Finance answered a parliamentary question on this matter on 1 May and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry answered parliamentary questions on it on 23 May. The net gist of what appears to be happening is that for the first time, to the best of my knowledge, in the administration of this State since independence, a second accounting officer is being appointed in a particular year to the same Department. Second accounting officers were occasionally appointed when a Department was divided into two separate Departments and someone had to be made responsible as accounting officer for part of the original Vote of the first Department. However, that is a very different matter from what is happening here. There is only one Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry but there are two accounting officers, which never happened before.
The second accounting officer, who will be responsible for the great bulk of the disbursements in the Department — all the FEOGA related payments and guarantee and structural payments — will be appointed by the Minister for Finance. We have not been told whether that appointment has been made yet. I would obviously be interested to know who it is and from where the appointment will be made.
Vote 31 will have to be revised to reflect two separate votes and two separate sets of responsibility. Two reports will have to be made to the Committee of Public Accounts and presumably the Comptroller and Auditor General will have to audit two sets of books. We are being asked to recommend the Dáil to vote on a revised estimate which will take account of whatever administrative and other changes will be made. Subheads L1 and L2 will also have to be changed enormously. The Minister averted to one of the changes that will have to be made to L2.
L2 is headed market intervention losses by deficiency, accident etc. The etc. covers a multitude. That subhead will now increase from a purely nominal figure of £500,000 to £71.982 million, to take account of the fines alone. This will be together with other matters that may arise during the course of this year, in particular refunding more than £31 million of European Commission meat which was destroyed in a fire.
Provision of £19.35 million was made under subhead L1, the financing of the Common Agricultural Policy for expenses in connection with market intervention and the financing of other FEOGA Guarantee section measures. This entails two substantial supplementary estimates as well as a whole division into two estimates. When dealing with subheads A1 to 11 under administration, the Minister should deal with the restructuring of the Department and when, and from where, the appointments I referred to earlier will be made. Perhaps the Minister would let us know if there is any precedent for this. I believe there is not and after more than 75 years of administration of our own affairs, it is a momentous occasion. There has been little or no comment on it. Why this has happened is something this committee and the Dáil should be told. It is clearly connected with the failure to control expenditure under the Common Agricultural Policy over the years — specifically FEOGA expenditure. There must be great unhappiness in Brussels about this, as there is in certain places here.
Looking at our general agricultural policy over the years, from the three words in the title of the Department, the word "food" should be emphasised. The decision to put "food" into the title of the Department of Agriculture was taken in 1987. I do not doubt it was taken with the best of intentions. Unhappily, the decision has not worked and the sooner we all realise that the better. For a long time I was based in the Department of Industry and Commerce, looking across at Agriculture House on the opposite side of Kildare Street. It could not be seen in those days because it was always covered in scaffolding as it began to fall down shortly after it was put up. Happily that defect has been cured; I am not sure the other defects have. Even though there was 20 yards between the two Departments they might as well have been 2,000 miles apart.
No communication.
The thinking was entirely different. In the Department of Agriculture, the primary producer was king and the only one who mattered. The larger interests of the economy did not really arise. That was a short-sighted approach and policy. Over the years we have paid a high price for it. Even though this country produces some of the best primary product and raw material in the world of food, it is not well known as a producer of consumer-ready food. We have been happy over the years to dump our primary production into intervention or any system that maximises the return to the primary producer and minimises the return to the economy. That is why we are so little known as consumer product and commodity producers. We have lost out heavily because of that and will continue to do so. It is never too late to change and I have constantly advocated change. This Minister has had many fundamental changes forced on him through circumstance. He should take the decision that we will now become a producer of consumer food products and not simply a producer of commodities. I understand my time is up although this topic could be developed at some length and with some benefit bit there is not the opportunity to do it.
We are restricted in the amount of time we have. All the chairmen agreed to share inadequate facilities. We do not have sufficient accommodation or staff and we must have a televised room. The number of committees in operation does not allow for more lengthy debates on the Estimates. We have dealt with five major departmental Estimates within the last three weeks and six Bills in the previous four weeks. The other committees using the same level of time has put pressure on the whole operation. The situation will have to be seriously looked at by all the parties in the House. We have to work within the constraints we have, not the ones we would like to have.
We have no spokesperson for the Independent group which leaves me with a few minutes in hand. The Minister might use that time to reply to questions raised by the two spokespersons. We will then move onto the first subhead.
I will be very brief. There were some points raised to which I would like to refer.
The first point Deputy Cowen raised was that the Estimates did not take account of the BSE crisis. This is the case and I would like to outline some of the supplementary costs arising from the crisis. These post-budget Estimates were published in early March and the BSE crisis started on 20 March. The depopulation costs associated with slaughtering herds and removing from the food chain all meat thereof, are an additional £3 million. These figures are provisional and are best estimates.
The additional intervention costs, much of which we will recoup, although not all because we have increased the deboning allowances, are in the order of £8 million. I have already moved a Supplementary Estimate for rendering which will not exceed £2.5 million. The Minister for Justice informed the House that there would be an additional cost of £16 million in relation to Border control measures.
The amount in the Estimate for An Bord Bia for last year was £16.7 million in total and it will be £21.8 million this year because we have reorganised funding within the overall industrial operational programme. There is an increase in resources for it although it is not indicated in the bare figure in the Estimates. It may be that European funds for the promotion of beef will be put into An Bord Bia; we are looking for a relaxation of restrictions on that. The Commissioner told me it would be in the latter half of the year to get the best return for spending that money because the timing is still wrong in relation to consumers. There will be some additional expenditure for An Bord Bia.
Deputy Cowen also raised the question of money returned with regard to Teagasc. I will deal with Teagasc under subhead B3. The overall research expenditure was £33.46 million last year and this year it is £37.5 million. I will deal with the on-farm investment schemes under subhead M1.
In relation to Deputy O'Malley's points, the final decisions on the change envisaged have not been made. The idea is that within the next couple of months the Department will announce its plans for reorganisation under the strategic management initiative. That will encompass the establishment of executive units, one of which will be a unit or group of units to deal with FEOGA funds. As I outlined, this year's amount in the Estimate is £3.26 million net but we handle £1.2 billion, if the FEOGA moneys are included.
It is envisaged there will a new accounting officer — no date has been set but I imagine it will apply to the accounting year starting in 1997, although the executive units may be in place prior to that. There are a number or precedents for this; for example, under the Vote of the Minister for Finance there are separate accounting officers for the State laboratories, the Revenue Commissioners and the Comptroller and Auditor General's office. There will be executive units within the overall structure.
Deputy O'Malley also referred to the possibility of moving the responsibility for food to the Department of Enterprise and Employment. This is a matter for a political decision but the food chain from the producer is continuous and there is a need for integration. The raw materials and supply policies and the CAP are integrated. All other countries in Europe, bar one, have the same procedures whereby agriculture and food are combined. The decision to that effect taken in 1987 was correct.
I agree our image leans towards agriculture rather than consumer foods, but the arrangements are being made for the "Horizons" event next week and if the Deputy wishes to come along he will see that the top 100 food companies have a great story to tell of the £5 billion worth of food exports, including pastas, prepared consumer foods, cheeses, meat products, vacuum packs, consumer cuts of meat, sauces and food ingredients. Perhaps the problem is that the story of the development of the consumer side of the industry has not been told.
We will deal first with subheads A1 to A11.
What is the breakdown of the EU presidency costs of £655,000?
One pays to become famous.
I am not questioning that we should spend the money, I am asking how it will be spent.
One has to commend the Minister on his efforts to make the offices more friendly to the general public but money still needs to be spent on them.
I congratulate the Minister on the introduction of the charter of rights for farmers and making sure they were able to get access to the departmental offices in the afternoons as well as the mornings. I congratulate him also on the manner in which he has tackled the problem of modernising the district offices. I hope he keeps up the work because they are a vital cog in the wheel of the agricultural industry.
I take it the various offices throughout the country are not covered under theses subheads. Do subheads A1 to A11 deal with the Department in Dublin only or all the offices?
All the offices.
The Minister referred to the problems of strikes. The opening of the offices happened as a result of non-consultation with staff which brought about a strike that the Minister sought to divert in a novel way by paying overtime before the overtime was done — something like £600,000 worth.
Do not blame the Minister for the sins of previous Administrations.
The purpose of this meeting is to extract new information. Will the Minister indicate the cost to the Department of the industrial dispute and the non-consultation with the staff?
The primary costs of the presidency are for three informal meetings that will be held in Ireland. In County Kerry in September the CSA will meet — it is a group which meets every week in Brussels to deal with the CAP business; the Ministers and the chief veterinary officers will also be in Kerry. There will be extra attendance by the Department officials to act as chairpersons of the Council working parties. Italian representatives told me they were chairing as many as 63 different working groups, which will be a great strain on the Department. Prior to the Presidency I will hold bilateral meetings with every member state and there may be many bilateral consultations during the Presidency. The figure of £655,000 will deal with all those costs.
A sum of £5 million was provided in last year's budget for the charter. I will give a brief breakdown of the figure. Some £1.6 million relates to staff, including extra staff and training. The upgrading of premises has an allocation of £2.175 million and I have a list of all the offices, if Deputies have a particular interest in progress. New information technology costs £1.175 million and there is £50,000 for IT consultancy.
Due to the building renovations and delays in getting approval there has been a carryover to this year of £1.375 million. The telephone system would be included in that figure. A system will be in place shortly whereby if a person rings a local district office they be put through to Portlaoise or Cavan or the Department in Dublin for the price of a local call.
I was asked about the cost of the CPSU dispute. During the dispute people were on a work to rule and there were no replacements and so on. Arising out of the settlement of the dispute, which is under ballot at present, there were a number of regradings and promotions. This was a special Department deal with the approval of the Department of Finance. I would not like to be drawn into too much detail because it may have knock on effects in other Departments.
Before the charter was even thought of, there was a long standing grievance on the part of the CPSU, the low paid elements of the public sector, to the effect that they were in a cul de sac as regards a limit on increments in their pay. They wanted to be regraded from COs up to SOs and from SOs up to EOs. As part of the settlement of all the issues, including those subject of the dispute, there were a number of regradings. The total would be less than 100. We have a total staff in the Department of about 4,000, including about 1,200 CPSU members. I hope that gives Deputies some information. The annual cost is to be borne within the Department’s budget.
Subhead A8 refers to supplementary measures to protect the financial interest of the European Union. There is an increase of 128 per cent to £500,000. What has that been spent on and how is it intended to spend it? Why is it necessary?
The committee should be aware that I and the senior management of the Department have been concerned about the internal audit function. We have decided to put in place an act of accreditation to get, for the first time in the public service or a Department, an outside auditor involved with the Department of Finance and the senior management of the Department of Agriculture in a new committee to look at our auditing procedure to see how accurate it is.
The £500,000 covers an audit manager consultancy which examines all aspects of scrutiny, including labelling for export refund schemes, better management information systems between meat plants and Departments and all aspects of operations. It also includes implementation of recommendations arising from the computer security and computer audit consultancy, which was completed earlier this year as part of the IT consultancy to which I referred, and staff training in key areas relating to protection of financial interests in the EU. That may involve middle management in the Department doing some outside courses and getting state of the art training to ensure we manage better and have a commercial audit approach. It is a strenuous attempt internally to improve our structures and procedures.
I am grateful to the Minister for telling us all that in detail. I agree with what is being done and I do not quibble with the expenditure of £0.5 million for this purpose. My great regret is that something like this was not done seven to ten years ago when it was needed and would have saved hundreds of millions of pounds which was allowed to trickle into the wrong hands over a long period. There is an element of bolting the stable door after the horse has fled, but at least it is a movement in the right direction.
The significance of this measure should be realised. The Minister tells us that he is appointing an outside auditor to do the internal audit in his own Department. That is a significant event. It is a pity that some of the political commentary which we get so liberally in this country on many trivial matters totally ignores things like this. All we get are personal scandals and so on rather than details of some significant events and major changes which are happening in terms of public administration. The fact that it has been necessary to do this is something on which we should reflect. We should ask why it is necessary because it is a serious reflection that it is happening. Nonetheless I welcome it.
I think we would all join with those comments.
I may have misled the committee slightly on one point. A Mr. Bob Semple from one of the leading accountancy firms is chairman of this advisory committee and that involves outside work. However, the audit manager is internal. We have our own audit structures but we are taking external advice both in terms of consultancy and individuals.
Can I give one example of the new anti-fraud measures? One of the abuses in the area of intervention related to the sex of the meat. Heifer meat is cheaper than steer beef. The figure of £0.5 million includes the cost of training staff and internal audit personnel to deal with the high risk area of computerised labelling proposals. A molecular biologist will be employed to advise on the sex testing of beef to reduce the possibility of higher rates of export refunds being claimed on meat other than that from male animals.
I do not want to go over ground that has been ploughed and reploughed but I want to make one point. I welcome any improvement in controls. There is an acknowledgement in the tribunal report that those arrangements and changes were taking place at the time. Obviously the serious increase in intervention during 1990, 1991 and 1992 brought about some problems. However, it must be recorded that the disallowance was only in the region of 0.4 per cent over a total of 20 years in the Department. Credit has to be given there. I do not accept the assertion that hundreds of millions of pounds have been lost. It certainly is not what came out of the tribunal report, but I do not want to go into that again.
There is nothing wrong with seeking outside consultancies if we know what they are for. An extra £250,000 is to be spent this year. Can the Minister give us the general gist of that expenditure?
We just finished that section.
Can the Minister explain why female beef does not command the same refund as male beef? I prefer a maiden heifer steak to a bully beef steak.
The Deputy is looking for equality.
It has been an ongoing tenet of the CAP that virtually all supports, including the beef premia, intervention and export refunds, have exclusively applied to male animals, be they steers or bulls. That has always been the way. It is part of the ethos of the Community that this is the element of the managed market and the rest is left more or less to the free domestic consuming market.
I would like to give some breakdown on consultancies. The information technology consultancy was a development of a new accounts system to meet the EU Commission's most stringent standards on financial control. We are the accredited intervention paying agency and we must move with the times. The development of PC packages, including support for E-mail and the provision of technical support consultancy, will enable the Department to deliver its services in a more efficient and effective manner. The other major area where the services of consultants were used was in the meat inspection service. We have one of the most costly meat inspection services in Europe. There was some consultancy involved in the Strategic Management Initiative, which referred to the reorganisation of the Department. We got some outside consultants to advise us on that.
We will move on to subheads B1 to C3, including other services, education, research, advisory services, livestock improvement and eradication of disease.
As regards the TB eradication scheme, I note in the Minister's proposals for a reduction of £10 million per annum in the disease levy, although there will be an increase of £14 million in additional testing costs for farmers. He spoke about a reduction of £7 million in gross expenditure as a result. Will the Minister indicate who will pay these costs? As regards what is effectively the deregulation of the scheme, will he confirm that it is simply a case of veterinary costs being transferred and costs generally being transferred from the Department to the farmer and that it is basically a case of the farmer having to pick up the tab which was not the case when we had a flat rate charge?
Given the BSE scare, is the Department concerned that the pre-movement test has been eliminated? We will only know from where a beast has come from one test to another, although there could be a 12 month interim period. The beast could have been on seven or eight different farms or locations in the meantime. In the absence of a pre-movement test and if there was an outbreak of disease, we would not be able to trace it back to an individual herd. What is the Department's view on that concern which has been expressed by many farmers about the abolition of the pre-movement test and the fact that we do not have a computerised movement permit system? I raised the need for a compatible computerised movement permit system similar to that in Northern Ireland during a Dáil debate last week.
We hear a great deal about information technology. The one area where it appears the Department has failed is in the computerisation of a movement permit system. If we had a movement permit system compatible with the system in the North, the £16 million for cross-Border surveillance would automatically disappear. With a compatible system, if a beast came from the North and was presented to a processing factory or a mart in the South, we would be able to confirm its origin and send it back or destroy it. We are spending £16 million redeploying gardaí from crime ridden areas in urban centres.
The chairman will be aware of the difficulty of policing the Border although it has been effective and successful. What would be the cost of a computerised movement permit system? It could well be less than £16 million which will be an annual charge until the BSE crisis is sorted out. What moves are being made to deal with that? Can we expect a Supplementary Estimate this year which I would support if such a system was put in place? A major issue in many countries to which we export is that we cannot trace movement on a daily basis in the same way as our Northern Ireland counterparts.
One of my criticisms of the changes to the TB eradication scheme has been the failure to address the administrative cost. The old TB scheme had an administrative cost factor of approximately 30 per cent which was unprecedented in terms of the administrative cost of any scheme. One would expect administrative costs to be between 7 and 10 per cent. To what extent has the Minister addressed that problem to have a greater impact on reducing this part of the Estimate?
I would like the Minister to answer my questions on a computerised movement permit system, the saving of £16 million presently being spent on the gardaí policing the Border, and the shift in costs from the Department to farmers who now must pay for tests and administrative costs. Has there been a reduction or will the Minister indicate if there will be a substantial reduction in administrative costs? If the disease eradication scheme has been privatised to the extent suggested, the centralised administrative cost is now unnecessary and is a burden on us.
I am sure we all join with Deputy Cowen in hoping it can be eliminated.
I do not agree with Deputy Cowen on a number of issues, but I agree with the Minister on computerisation. Banks or other business institutions were able to computerise their systems very speedily. I have been looking for this for many years through my role in farm organisations and politics. Until we have a computerised system for the entire herd we will continue to have problems. I welcome the introduction of the new scheme. There was a suggestion or a promise during the consultation process that those who tested animals after purchase and made a better effort to keep their herds clear of disease would get a bonus. This does not seem to have happened and it is has caused some anxiety.
While I understand the Minister gives grant-in-aid to Teagasc, part of which comes from the EU, it is extremely important that research is done at farm level, especially in relation to smaller farmers who cannot afford the consultants available through the REPS, farm retirement and others schemes. There is an insufficient number of long-term instructors available through Teagasc. I would ask the Minister to use his influence with Teagasc to ensure there are more permanent instructors. The word "permanent" is important because it takes time for a local adviser to build up a relationship with and to be trusted by the farming community. I have come across extremely good examples where much has been done for smaller farmers.
At a time of major curtailments resulting from quotas on dairying, beef, etc., some farmers got into deer farming and so on without proper advice and through the scurrilous involvement of senior political figures. They have been left bankrupt. It is important to have an independent advisory service to ensure farmers get the proper advice. I urge the Minister, when talking to Teagasc about its budget, to ensure that not only is the research side looked after but also that permanent staff are available to provide the information that farmers need.
While the charter of farmers' rights suffered in this dispute, the structure of payment to farmers in the last 12 months improved dramatically. All farmers, regardless of political persuasion, are extremely thankful for that.
I concur with Deputy Crawford. I am an old survivor of the committees of agriculture. I became a member of the Cork Committee of Agriculture in 1962 and stayed until it disbanded. These committees played a vital role in imparting agricultural knowledge to the farmers.
They appointed temporary agricultural instructors who because they were needed in every area eventually found their way back to their respective areas. I may be subject to criticism for saying this, but the day we disbanded the committees of agriculture was bad for the industry. Public representatives in the past ten years have not recommended to any Minister that county committees of agriculture should be re-established. There is a need for them and the sooner we re-establish them, the better.
An illustrious Taoiseach, Charlie Haughey, promised a committee in Athlone that he would restore the committees of agriculture. However, nothing has been done and Mr. Haughey left office without restoring them.
There is a case to be made for the reestablishment of committees of agriculture that would ensure EU and departmental agricultural directives are properly analysed and relate to the farming community. The Minister should reconsider re-establishing these committees throughout the country.
I will consider Deputy Sheehan's comments on the committees of agriculture although Teagasc stoutly resists any such move. Some expenses are attached to the running of these committees and they have been criticised as being something of a talking shop. However, I would not totally dismiss the idea and I welcome submissions from any interested parties. Obviously, they must provide a service to farmers that is not otherwise there. A number of successive Governments have not seen fit to reconstitute them, but I would consider it if a clear cost benefit was shown.
Deputies Cowen and Crawford raised the question of Teagasc's staffing levels. They said the Department of Finance did not approve staff for it etc. On 5 March last, following detailed consideration of the staffing needs of Teagasc, I reached agreement with the Minister for Finance to recruit a further 47 new posts for Teagasc on the basis that they were largely financed through the Structural Funds. In addition to this, Teagasc received sanction for a considerable number of other posts not classified as new. These include 50 advisers for work related to the REP scheme. Teagasc also received sanction for 25 new clerical posts following an ONM review by the Department of Finance. Other posts sanctioned include a substantial number of short term contracts for area aid work in each of the years 1994-96 and ten contract advisers for work in agribusiness. I am aware of certain difficulties in parts of the country and I have asked Dr. Liam Downey to try and respond to local needs as effectively as possible.
Deputy Cowen raised a number of points on TB. The post-budget table of the appropriations-in-aid under subhead N13 was not adjusted to take account of the levies — they were reduced from 1 April — and it should read £17 million for this year. The levies have decreased from £29 million to £17 million. It is estimated that the cost of testing, which will be paid for by farmers, will be in the order of £14 million. The disease levy for this and the next three years is fixed to be in the order of £10 million and the compensation is on a 50/50 funding basis. Therefore, every pound paid in levies will be returned to farmers in compensation and will be matched by a pound from the Exchequer. We reached that agreement at the establishment of the TB forum. That meant our best guesstimate was that we would have £19 million committed through existing compensation for reactors etc. That left only £1 million and therefore, it was not possible to introduce a two tier rate of compensation for those who had pre or post-movement testing.
While the farmers' organisations lobbied for a differential rate, they also sought a hardship fund. I have put it to them and the working groups at two of the forum's meetings that it was not possible to have both and they should make up their minds which they wanted. They agreed to the overall parameters of £20 million, £10 million in levies and £10 million to the Exchequer, which was an increase.
All administration costs, travelling and research expenses had been borne by the Exchequer. The farmers only have to pay for compensation. They are getting an exceptional deal. Earlier levies did not all go back to farmers. They could not, once they secured an overall financial deal, look for more money and not pay more in levies. I had to make a decision. There was disagreement between the farmers' organisations and I deemed the hardship was more deserving. I will not have a differential rate on pre-movement testing.
The first leg of the AMPH, the computerised animal movement permit system, is now in place with the two tag and passport card systems. The Mullaghoíne and South Western Services Co-ops are involved with it. The logistics of that are now being put in place. The estimated cost of putting the AMPH together is around £10 million £14 million; we cannot be accurate. While I appreciate the Deputy's comments and I am determined to move towards not only a system which can trace animals but to put that computerised permit system in place, there will be meeting the Department of Finance in the next two weeks to discuss that specific matter. I am not over the troubles with the 1997 Estimate and this year's Supplementary Estimate, when levies, BSE, REPS etc. are taken into account, is over the 2 per cent figure. If one puts the £50 million fines with the £70 million into account, we are looking at an overestimate of £120 million. I am not exactly flavour of the month in Merrion Street in looking for another £14 million. However, these are all part of ongoing negotiations. Having got permission to come up with special resolutions to the CPSU dispute etc. we must adhere to central Government controls and have regard to public sector finances.
That is precisely the point. I am not lobbing it at the Minister's door but the Department of Finance must at some stage figure out if it works on a year in, year out basis or if it is in the business of sorting out real problems. If the BSE issue continues — every indication is that it will — we are looking at continual cross-Border surveillance costs, at 1996 prices, of £16 million a year. The Minister confirmed that a computerised movement permit system, which would deal with this problem and eliminate the ongoing yearly cost of £16 million, would cost between £10 million and £14 million. If the BSE problem continues and nothing else was done but the establishment of a computerised cross-Border system, the Department of Finance could save up to £9 million on a two year cycle alone.
I empathise and sympathise with the Minister's predicament, but surely he has the support of all his colleagues in dealing with this huge problem. Everywhere the Minister or his colleagues go, whether it involves veterinarians, officials, Ministers or the Taoiseach, the issue arises of satisfying our customers that there is no cross-Border infiltration of cattle, from the North to the South. It is a critical issue in terms of the integrity of our food industry. I seek to support the Minister in whatever efforts he can make to ensure the Department of Finance opens its blinkers now and again and realises it would probably be the best £10 million to £14 million the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry would spend this year if he could get his hands on that sum. If the Minister cannot get his hands on it, or a contribution towards it, he should examine every item of expenditure in the Estimate and secure £14 million to do the job.
We must move on as three subheads remain to be discussed.
Nobody should think the problem in the Border area is easy to solve. As somebody who lives close to it, I am more sad than most that it has been necessary to put the Garda on patrol to maintain the situation. It was a happy position over the last couple of years because security had been minimised. Nobody should think computerisation alone will solve the problem——
It would solve the Northern aspect of the problem.
——but this does not mean it should not proceed as soon as possible. It does not make sense that girls are sitting in offices, writing blue cards for animals that will never be moved. They should be working on computers, trying to ensure that the state of animals which are being moved is fully known and accepted. If there is a breakdown in Northern Ireland the authorities can trace every animal which left the herd in the previous 12 months. This is not possible in the South. With all due respect, some of the breakdowns here stem from the fact that continuous herds have not been tested as quickly as they might have been if proper traceability was possible.
The benefits of an AMPH system are strong. In terms of the BSE crisis, we are relying on the headage and premia schemes for information on a herd of seven million animals, where there are more animal movements than any other country. There are many reasons to favour an AMPH system, including disease, administration, premia checks and fraud. The redeployment of gardaí from serious crime centres, such as Dublin, is also a source of concern. Gardaí have enough to do fighting drug barons, etc., and this is another factor which should be taken into account.
I intend to make a strong case for AMPH and to try to get it put in place. It is costly but it would have definite long-term benefits, particularly in the new era of traceability. If there is labelling of brands of beef, not just Irish beef but where producer groups get together, such as in the golden vale, people will want to know from where the animals came. Buyers in Tesco may want this information and AMPH would be worthwhile from that point of view also.
The system would also make the Border much tighter and integrated. However, tag switching, etc., is so ingenious that it would not be foolproof. I support AMPH but my first priority in the Department was to get the payments moving. Computerisation was required in that regard and given that it is in place, the AMPH system will be my next priority. I note Deputies' comments and I will convey them to the Minister for Finance.
We now move to subheads D1 to K, production and development aid and miscellaneous items.
This area covers An Bord Bia, which is most important at this time. I served on its predecessor, CBF, and I welcome the funding which would be available to the board if the BSE problem did not exist. When I joined CBF in 1979, a sum of £700,000 was available to the board. This was cut to approximately £300,000 by the then Minister, Ray MacSharry. The sum available now is a major step forward. At a symposium chaired by Deputy Deasy, when he was trying to secure additional funds for the meat board which was spending 6 per cent of its throughout on promotion at that time, Mr. Tony O'Reilly, the chief executive of Heinz, said he could not accept that the money then available to the board was realistic.
The current budget is a major step forward in terms of the funds available up to last year. However, it must be considered in the context of the BSE problem. Whatever funds are required to reopen our markets must be available. I congratulate the Minister, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste, and their staff, who played a tremendous role at veterinary and technical levels, in ensuring existing markets are reopened. The only two markets which remain closed are Iran, where some progress was made before it was inhibited, and Libya, which I hope will reopen in the near future. An Bord Bia is most important and I am sure the food fair organised for next week will be successful.
Producer groups must be considered and more heavily promoted. There is an active lamb producers' group in the Monaghan area. It has proved beneficial to the farmers concerned and brought about a better level of advice and product. It also guarantees that a product for the market is available throughout the year. This aspect must be examined in terms of overall livestock production. Efforts have not been made in the Department over many years to promote this type of group structure, which involves a commitment to the meat factory or processor of a quality product which can be guaranteed to supermarkets over a period. If we are to get a guaranteed Irish product we certainly must go down that way. Opting for the best possible outlet on the day will not build up an industry for us. We had factories processing our meat right down to canned foods 15 or 20 years ago. We had the Cork Marts/IMP Group, Clover Meats and Shannon Meats. They were all producing corned beef and that sort of thing. They were using every piece of the animal.
Deputy O'Malley talked about the need for a separate food body. I do not agree with that. The EU format worked against the food industry in this country. We have to try to get back to a situation where we have far more downstream processing and far better control of the product we provide to the consumer. That will bring back guaranteed long term markets for us, not the short-term buck. Some of us thought that some of those co-ops were being less than progressive in doing things right. When we saw the figures that came out of later findings we saw that their history was not as chequered as it was supposed to be. We have to be prepared to go to the consumer with the product. We have many of them in my own constituency of Cavan-Monaghan that are progressing well in spite of the sterling problem. That needs to be the way forward.
The Minister must be congratulated on his efforts in trying to promote the meat industry. I could never imagine why Irish meat manufacturers were mixing cereals with corned beef and killing that finished product while at the same time across the water their counterparts were producing pure corned beef. The amount of pure corned beef that was being imported from Great Britain prior to the BSE scare was outstanding in comparison to the amount of tinned beef we were producing which was not pure corned beef product. I am amazed that Irish producers were so naive in allowing the market to drop from their grasp. All Irish meat producers should be producing pure Irish corned beef in the can. There is no need to add cereal to it. It is not a seller. It remained on the shelves in the supermarkets while the pure product was snapped up.
I congratulate the Minister also under heading H5 — assistance for the non-thoroughbred horse industry — where he increased funding from £75,000 in 1995 to £125,000 in 1996. This is an increase of 67 per cent. This subhead provides for a grant to the Irish Horse Board, a non-thoroughbred sport horse breeders co-operative. The Irish draught horse is been given an opportunity to survive and thrive. It was becoming extinct. The Irish draught mare has produced some very good racehorses — we could say the best in the world — and some of the major champion racers are produced when they are bred with a pedigree stallion. The Minister is right in this respect. There is a bright future for the Irish horse industry provided we breed properly and the Minister is going in the right direction by improving that grant by 67 per cent. I commend the Minister on this subhead. He has made an excellent job of it and I have no doubt he will continue to do so.
Would the Minister consider looking again at the mandate of Teagasc? The dead hand of bureaucracy is all over it and there is a need to deal with some of these problems to allow Teagasc to deal with its own staffing arrangements within existing budgets. A crazy situation exists there. The Department of Finance has too much of a say over it.
The Minister has clarified the situation regarding An Bord Bia and he talked about an increase of £5 million this year over last year which is to be welcomed. Quite clearly, he is hoping for some further moneys at European level for an aggressive promotion of Irish beef which would not only be welcome but perhaps necessary, apart from a European wide promotional campaign that must now take place for European beef because the consumer is not showing sufficient interest in eating it. We have only two people in the UK which is our most important market. They are dealing with four multiples which are the big purchasers but we need far greater presence in the UK market from An Bord Bia. As an export marketing arm, more people should be seconded, whether it be our trade representatives in Embassies or wherever. There are not sufficient personnel there telling the good story to meet the magnitude to the problem.
It is unfortunate for an agricultural country that so few people realise just how big a problem we have in relation to the BSE scare and the impact it is going to have on us all economically if we do not get to grips with it. There is a need for support for producer groups. More beef producing groups are going to have to be set up where there will be a direct link from producer group to the shelf, similar to what we have in the sheep industry. I heard Deputy Crawford talk about his Monaghan sheep producer group. We have one in Offaly also, which won the classification award in Athenry. This voluntarism has been an aspect of agricultural policy in terms of classification schemes and the setting up of producer groups. A more aggressive hands on approach has to be taken as part of our policy to put these structures in place because this is what the market is demanding. Too often we wait for parts of the industry, particularly at primary level and processor level, to get to grips with what the market wants, but we are not making sure it happens. Perhaps we are not providing sufficient financial incentives to make sure it happens and I would suggest to the Minister that he review that area to try to improve that situation. Much lip service has been paid to it for many years but it is not happening on the ground.
I am declaring my interest in relation to Bord na gCon. I am disappointed. Will the Minister explain to me why there is a 26 per cent reduction in funding for the development of the greyhound industry? It has always been the case that this industry is a poor relation to the horse industry despite the fact there are many farm families who are dependent on this industry. The potential has not been looked at. I welcome some of the Finance Bill provisions which have also been welcomed by the industry. We are still waiting for the Bill to come before the House so we can have a debate on the greyhound industry.
I ask the Minister to try to have that matter before the Dáil as quickly as possible because delay means a continuing decline in attendance numbers and people involved in breeding in the greyhound industry. It has got to a critical phase at this stage. If there are no enlightened policy initiatives, that industry will never achieve its potential although the approach of some of the people now involved is innovative.
I want to address a small matter with regard to the Land Commission services, subhead K, although it is not directly relevant. There is a continuing problem and perhaps the Minister might work with his counterpart in the Department of Justice, Deputy Owen, or whoever is in charge of the Land Registry. The number of outstanding schedules which have not been proceeded with to final registration is causing severe hardship for many people who want to build houses on lands to generate income where farms have cash problems or to encourage sons or daughters to stay at home. Many of these Land Commission allotments have not been finalised for registration which means people do not have absolute title and cannot make mortgage arrangements for the building of houses, etc. This is an associated issue. It is not directly relevant but perhaps the Minister would use his good offices to try to sort out the matter because the situation is becoming farcical.
The Minister inherited that problem.
Of course, it has been there for about 20 years. It does not matter who inherited it. Will we solve it? I have looked at deeds of conveyance going back to 1829.
The Minister might give the committee some indication as to what he proposes to do with regard to the meat classification scheme. What is the purpose of that expenditure? Should it be increased? Finally, I hope the trade exhibition goes well next week. It is timely. Fianna Fáil will support it and hopes it will be successful.
First, the matter with regard to producer groups is outlined under subhead M, and the sum involved is £324,000. I am concerned that there are no beef producer groups established in Ireland although there are a number of sheep producer groups which I am anxious to develop.
On the earlier point about the Teagasc staff in the Department of Finance, there is a history of unauthorised staff and problems with that Department. We now have an acknowledged base line which will I hope improve relations between the Department of Finance and Teagasc in future.
On the sport horse sector to which Deputy Sheehan referred, the £50,000 extra is specifically for an inward buyer programme. The problem has been a glut of poor quality medium range horses as the last structural programme went for quantity rather than quality. We are now restricting the £4 million of Structural Funds exclusively to better stallions, the first two foals on the best of mares, etc., so it is genetically-indexed merit based.
I will convey to Mr. Michael Duffy and the Chairman, Mr. Philip Lynch, the Deputy's concerns about the level of staff in An Bord Bia in the UK. I have been on a number of direct promotions there which were well represented by Tesco, Marks and Spenser, ASDA and all the groups, and I thought a good relationship existed. If more people are required, this can be examined.
I want to clarify a point made about Bord na gCon because it is important. The sum of £3 million was given to Shelbourne Park, £1.5 million each year over the two years 1994-95. That apart, Bord na gCon received £750,000 in each of the years 1992 and 1993. In 1994, it would have received £1.35 million and last year, if one leaves out the Supplementary Estimate of £500,000 given to Tralee track, it received £1.5 million. This year, the sum has risen to £2.6 million. Therefore, it has gone from £1.35 million, to £1.5 million, to £2.6 million now.
The development of Shelbourne park has been an outstanding success. Deputy Cowen and other Deputies have probably been there more often than I have, but the figures they are showing for betting returns and restaurants are for people not interested in racing but in having a night out. It has been a remarkable success and gives great hope for the future of greyhound racing.
There is a question about Harolds Cross. A special committee has been set up within Bord na gCon to examine all possible developments, including its possible sale.
The meat classification scheme is under subhead H2 and is going well. There have been a number of complaints from farmers about grading the beef classification scheme and if farmers are dissatisfied there is an appeals procedure available. If they bring the matter to the attention of the factory management and the classification staff of the Department within the factory within 24 hours of the initial grading, it will be re-examined. I have received a number of representations about the matter and I hope that will be of some help.
The land classification scheme is the EUROP grid from one to five, from low to very high fat. It is on a low cost basis and we have retrained the staff involved. I did not want to put an expensive levy system in place and it is working well. I firmly believe we should pay on the basis of quality, not weight, in future.
I will take up the point with the Land Registry and the Minister for Justice because I am aware of similar delays and the inconvenience to people.
On the Estimate for organic farming of £10,000, I know it is only a part of the scene but there is a growing consumer trend towards organic products. To what extent do we have these as part of our window dressing as distinct from checking out their potential? I am sure this allocation does not represent the total spending on organic farming in a year. Too often these are unorthodox or marginal activities which are dealt with in an orthodox way by administration and from the point of view of policy, and they do not have an impact. These matters must we dealt with differently. There have been severe problems in the mushroom and tomato industries. To what extent can An Bord Glas improve some of the targets it has set itself in its five year plan? How is that plan doing, because there are many recommendations in the board's plan? One could ask about the state of play. There are some good aspirations and recommendations in it but we do not hear too much about whether these targets are being met. The mushroom sector has clearly outstripped all others. It has been a magnificent success but it has been hit hard by exchange rate problems vis-�-vissterling in the last 12 months.
We can count organic farming because it is mostly dealt with under subhead M3, which is the next tranche. Under subhead D1, An Bord Glas is getting £1.6 million this year, an increase of 3 per cent. Its primary function is to carry out market research, provide market information and promote horticulture produce. We account for only 0.3 per cent of the EU's fruit and vegetable production. Horticulture is a labour intensive sector. It is market oriented and there is no great intervention. There is a definite role for An Bord Glas. Its development plan set out the period 1994-99 and Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan, has responsibility for this area. The target is to increase output to £56 million. People often complain about the level of vegetable imports and that something should be done about it. We all agree but we are in a single market.
There are problems with the seasonality and the short season for fresh vegetables which makes economic production more difficult on a smaller scale than elsewhere in the Community. Between the viability of yields and the climate problems, it is difficult to get the exact match of continuous high quality product which is required. I will ask the Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan, to ensure that a full report on the horticultural sector is given to the committee.
We now move to subheads L1 to L5.
I did not understand the Minister's remarks about the reduction under subhead L1. One would have expected an increase given that we will have more products in intervention this year. If we do not, the products will be left on the side of the road.
Let us hope we will not have intervention; we could sell the products instead.
We all hope that but the drop in consumption and the Minister's analysis suggests that it will not be turned around in the short term. Perhaps the Minister could explain in detail what financial arrangements will be put in place so that when the autumn slaughtering season comes we will have an intervention system which will allow beef farmers to get back on their feet. What indications can he give that we are not heading towards an emergency intervention type system where prices would involve unprecedented losses for beef producers in the autumn? Perhaps he could explain the financial implications of putting our product into intervention, as seems likely in the absence of a market for it.
As regards intervention, any figures I give are tentative. Intervention was closed by Brussels but it has now been reopened. We had approximately 65,000 tonnes in May in the Community and we now have a further agreement for 50,000 tonnes in June, which may be increased. If we calculate that on an annual basis, we are facing a prospect of several hundred thousand tonnes of intervention being required. The more there is in intervention, the more it undermines the third countries. I was in Russia last week and the reason Ireland sells to Russia is there were no intervention stocks. The more we put into intervention, the more we create an overhang in the market which would undermine sales to third countries.
The figure of £8 million is a tentative estimate of what it would cost. We recoup at a set rate the cost of intervention. The Deputy will recall the first intervention intake was unsuccessful. Part of the difficulty was that we did not increase the deboning allowance above the standard recoupment rate from Brussels. We subsequently increased it by approximately 3p a pound for intervention and that is the cost we must bear. The gross cost will be £8 million but the Exchequer cost will be a small fraction of that. I cannot predict the volumes but we have been using intervention primarily for fore quarter beef, which means we are getting more steers than if the whole animal was used because we have prefixed a great deal for third countries on the hind quarter.
Is the Minister saying that if we have an intervention system of 50,000 tonnes per month, which is half a million tonnes for 1996, the gross cost will be £8 million, or is £8 million the cost of what is being dealt with already?
The £8.5 million is based on 30,000 tonnes of Irish intervention beef. This would attract a refund of £6.4 million. I do not want it to go out from here that there will be 30,000 tonnes of intervention beef. The volumes to date have been small, less than is normal in terms of our proportion of the uptake. Tenders have not been that high. They have been extremely high in Germany and tenders for bull beef have been extremely high because the domestic demand is down. I am facing an autumn of particular difficulty.
Big companies were critical of previous intervention because there was as much as 10p a pound in the difference between the intervention price and the real market price, which meant they could not develop markets as everything went into intervention. Now it is the same price. There is no floor price in intervention. If that was to change and we moved to safety net intervention, depending on prices in the autumn, volumes would rise. At present, we are on competitive tendering rather than fixed price. That is part of the new rules for intervention. It was hoped intervention would not have had to be reinstated. Because of the drop in milk prices there is intervention activity for skimmed milk powder and for other dairy products. I cannot accurately predict how that will go but I hope there will be stability.
On the assumption that we will have 30,000 tonnes of Irish intervention beef in 1996, that would have a gross increase in my Estimate of £8.5 million of which we would recoup £6.4 million.
I take it that 30,000 tonnes is the equivalent of 120,000 cattle.
Some 2.8 animals.
That is 90,000 cattle. What can be sent to the market if 90,000 cattle are going into intervention? Would the Minister agree that the competitive tendering system for intervention has meant that we have put 10,000 tonnes into intervention and that is inadequate for the numbers of cattle which will come on the market in the autumn? What is the Commission's views on how we should deal with this huge glut of cattle for which we should have a final export market or, in the absence of an export market, an intervention scheme? Is it not the case that if we continue with the present system, the likelihood of being able to offload that production will be low, therefore we will need special intervention measures to deal with our problem? Given the tenuous confidence in the marketplace at present, when will this unique Irish problem get on the agenda of the Council of Agriculture Ministers or must we endure continuing bickering with the British who caused this problem? Will the Minister put the case that in the absence of export markets our cattle prices will collapse because we do not have a domestic consumer market to take up the slack?
Last year £8.841 million was allocated under subhead L2, market intervention — losses by deficiency, accident, etc. This year it is reduced to £500,000. I understand this figure may not be correct because the Minister stated that a Supplementary Estimate might be required later in the year for the £71.982 million which accrued from something which happened in 1991.
In other words, instead of £0.5 million per year we might be looking for an additional £71.982 million to repay the EU what we owe it. I wish the Minister well in his efforts in that respect.
It is over.
I know the worst is over.
On subhead L5, the scheme for early retirement from farming, I congratulate the Minister on the success of this scheme. It has proved efficient. The funding has increased from £27.708 million to £40.404 million or by 46 per cent this year which shows the attractiveness of it. It is a good provision for the farming community and I hope it continues.
It is not easy to follow these figures because, of course, the figure for subhead L1 does not relate to the actual cost of the intervention. That is all funded under FEOGA guarantees from elsewhere independently of this. This is just the Exchequer cost of storage, freezing, handling, transport, etc. Assuming that the Minister's figure of £8.5 million extra is correct, and that 30,000 tonnes of beef is taken in, the figure will still be about the same as last year when intervention was almost nil.
According to the Minister's speech, the purchasing of butter and skim milk powder into storage is to resume. I presume that comes under this subhead also. I do not know what the amount will be but it could be quite substantial. It is disappointing that this has started again. While I agree that in the shortterm there is a vital necessity for sales into intervention given the appalling situation of the European market at present — there is absolutely no alternative — in the medium and longer-term we will have to stop thinking in terms of intervention. It is disastrous. We have thought in those terms for so long but we will have to think in terms of the sale of quality product. We have paid lip service to that, but I am afraid there is not much quality product and there are few brand names of any value. This is the terrible disappointment.
The pressure is taken off the Minister if he can get intervention reopened. It is a different matter this year as there is the BSE scare and there is nowhere to sell beef. It is just as well that there is limited intervention. In fact, it is too limited. However, BSE does not affect milk and here we are putting commodity type milk products back into intervention because it is the easy way out. Milk powder is the major milk commodity and butter is a commodity also. No consumer of milk powder asks where it is coming from because if you are reduced to consuming milk powder, you do not greatly care from where it comes, unhappily. It is never even specified that it is Irish; it could be from anywhere. It is appalling to see a natural Irish product reduced to the level where it is sold as a powdered commodity which could come from anywhere. We should be adding value to it. I would love to see that product leave this country as soft cheese or something of that kind. Hundreds or thousands of jobs could be created in making it, whereas there is nothing involved in making powder.
These Estimates, until one becomes familiar with them, are misleading because they only cover a tiny fraction of what is involved. There are huge sums of money here. In particular, there is no detail as to the likely outcome on milk and how much it will involve.
The Estimate of £0.5 million under subhead L2 is of course described by the Department as purely a token provision. That is all it is. The figure will be something in excess of £72 million and it may well be a good deal higher than that. Since Estimates of this kind have clearly gone out of date so quickly, would it not make sense for the Department and the Minister to update them properly to give us a proper picture when they are being debated? This is an exceptional case because a number of things have happened since January. The whole Estimate is so obviously out of date now that a new one should be published showing the present situation. Both the BSE scare and the issue of fines are so fundamentally important that they need to be reflected in this. These figures which we are discussing are meaningless.
The intervention subheads, particularly the expenses one, subhead L1, should be explained. It is not the actual money which is paid out to producers. This is only some aspects of the technical costs of running the provision, including presumably the financing costs which is only a net element between the actual cost and the average cost of the interest in a particular year in the EU. It may well be that this year, because Ireland's interest rates are so low, there will be a negative cost or a positive benefit — they are the same thing — and the State will gain on the financing. Perhaps the committee could get a breakdown of how those figures are achieved.
I accept the points raised by Deputy O'Malley with regard to the BSE scare and the fines, which are extraordinary items. The one that worries me is the milk, because the State seem to have agreed on a number of occasions to curtailments in Ireland's quota at world level, but Ireland has not had reciprocal agreement from New Zealand, the USA or any other country. That is a more serious problem. It is just a cycle. For a year or so after Ireland curtails its quota the milk price rises. I understand Australia and USA have time to build up supplies without any restrictions whatsoever.
Yes, but at an abysmal price.
Yes. They have minimal costs compared to our production costs. It is a matter which is hard to understand.
There are a number of points there. First, on the likely level of intervention, in the difficult years of 1990, 1991 and 1992, Ireland would have taken in about 250,000 tonnes of beef per year. I cannot make accurate predictions. If matters go well in Russia, we sell them 110,000 tonnes plus between September and April. If Egypt and Libya opened their markets to the live trade, other matters went well and Europe was to recover by a further 10 per cent, the prospect of 30,000 tonnes of intervention might be reasonable. If the link between CJD and BSE was advanced in a negative direction, for example, if the maternal link was proved or other things happened, five times that amount, 150,000 tonnes, might be required. We do not know and the Members can do their own mathematics — 30,000 tonnes is £8.5 million.
A Supplementary Estimate will be moved later in the year in relation to the fines and Members will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate. It will be possible to give a detailed breakdown at that point. A sum of £50 million has been provided in the overall budget arithmetic this year, although it in not included in subhead L2. An additional sum of £21.98 million has been defined and I intend to discuss with the Cabinet in the coming weeks the question of an appeal. I will strongly advocate an appeal on multitendering and perhaps on the entire fine. The final verdict on that point will depend on the legal advice; a report from a senior counsel is due imminently.
Deputy O'Malley's points about the net national figures are correct. The Department's borrowings in relation to the financial aspects of intervention in 1995 were £470 million and it is estimated that this will rise to over £460 million by the end of the year. Total funds available to the Department under active loan facilities are approximately £670 million. The Commission contributes to interest rate costs at current rates and this is credited in subhead N15 under Appropriations-in-aid. The current rate is 6 per cent, while the 7 per cent figure is in respect of bridging guarantee expenditure which was paid to cohesion states. However, this has been cut. No rate has been fixed for this year, but it is hoped the Commission will propose a rate of 3 per cent.
Deputy Sheehan referred to the early retirement scheme and REPS. Although we do not have time to deal with them now, they are both demand led schemes and demand has greatly exceeded the available resources. I am discussing the possibility of providing extra funds with the Minister for Finance. I intend the £6.7 million of savings from ERAD will be extra money for REPS and I am seeking a further £12 million from the Department of Finance, of which three quarters is recoupable.
We will proceed to the final subhead, M1 to N. Ten minutes are available to discuss these matters and I ask Members to co-operate to ensure the meeting concludes on time.
Regarding farm investment schemes and REPS, is there any support for the view that payments under control of farmyard pollution schemes are an investment in the future? Given the problems agriculture faces, has a package of measures been proposed to Cabinet which would require further funding by Government and possibly mean other Departments receive less money? They do not have the problems of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry.
If any other industry represented 10 per cent of GNP and was under the type of pressure being experienced by agriculture at present, many of the Minister's colleagues would take a more direct interest in what was happening. However, due to their lack of interest in this industry, the Minister must, unfortunately, paddle his own canoe.
As approximately 14,500 people are involved in REPS, will the Minister confirm that sufficient moneys are available to take over 40,000 people into the scheme? Approximately £230 million has been allocated over a seven year period, but at what stage will we get that figure? All future CAP reform supports will be in the direction of environmentally friendly type operations and REPS is ideally suited in that regard.
Regarding Leader, what does the increase to £11 million represent? Will there be a review as Leader is an accompanying supportive measure for CAP reforms? What is the level of participation by farmers in Leader and to what extent is it a scheme for wider rural development agencies rather than individual farmers for whom it was initially established? The control of farmyard pollution scheme is a hoary old chestnut in the Minister's administration in terms of trying to provide adequate resources given the demand for the scheme.
What does it say about the administration of Government generally that if 18,500 farmers want to make necessary investments to insure they will be competitive in future, there is a failure to provide the resources to ensure that happens in the shortest possible time? Many politicians on all sides would be the first to berate farmers if they had shown no interest in providing for environmentally friendly schemes and controlling farmyard pollution. Many fly by night representatives would complain in the Dáil about fish kills and problems arising from the failure of farmers to deal with this issue. However, farmers want to deal with this area. They have applied in unprecedented numbers but there is a failure in the administration of the Government to provide adequate resources.
Will the Minister outline if he can bring any further measures or proposals to Cabinet to have funds released to deal with this issue? It sends all the wrong signals to the industry and people abroad who are interested in buying a quality product that we do not appear able to find the resources to enable primary producers to produce in the most environmentally friendly way possible.
I thank the Minister for his extraordinary effort in making funds available which were not provided by his predecessor for the control of farmyard pollution. I also urge the Minister to try to find money so that the scheme can be reopened in the near future. It is a most important scheme and funding should be made available to those who could not avail of it previously. The REPS and the farmer retirement scheme are extraordinarily beneficial. It is essential that whatever money is needed to ensure they operate properly is provided. Will it be necessary to take on more staff to monitor the schemes? I understand there has been difficulty with some of the plans put forward, particularly for REPS, and that more monitoring will be required to ensure EU criteria are met. A sizeable sum of money has been provided for farmers to meet the criteria.
I deliberately did not respond to a point Deputy O'Malley raised earlier. I accept there are many committees and pressure on Deputies generally. However, there are not many meetings at 5.10 p.m. on a Thursday evening and if some of the Members who have been most outspoken about the Minister were as interested in agriculture as they maintain they are they would have been present to ask questions and listen to replies. Members of the parliamentary party have an opportunity every two weeks to meet the Minister but this was an opportunity for Opposition Members. They are quick to criticise but they did not take this chance to meet the Minister and discuss this important Vote. I appreciate that the spokesperson from the main Opposition party was present but I am disappointed other Members did not attend.
I always work on the basis that the quality of the debate counts, not the number of members present. The quality of today's debate was much better than many of the committee's other meetings when many more members were present.
Deputy Cowen asked if 40,000 people could be taken into REPS. It is estimated that by the end of this year 23,000 people will have joined the scheme. A 41 per cent increase has been provided this year but this is not enough. Almost £7 million has been moved from ERAD and it is reckoned that a total of £19 million extra will be needed. This leaves a deficit of approximately £12 million and I am discussing this matter with the Minister for Finance. Regarding Deputy Crawford's point, I sought extra staff. As the Deputy is aware, the recruitment embargo is being replaced with a rigid structure and talks are ongoing about the wider issue.
I have no difficulty with Deputy Cowen's point that we should be supportive in terms of giving grant aid to environmental works, etc. However, it boils down to priorities and choices. This is not ordinary Estimate money but rather Structural Funds which were part of central negotiations. A sum of £5.8 billion was secured to cover the period 1994-99. The only significant feature in terms of Ireland deviating from the rest of the Community is that we pay a portion of the costs of agriculture, fisheries, environmental sanitary services and roads. All these areas are seeking money and agriculture has got a share which was allocated by the previous Government.
The only point which could be argued strongly is that within the agriculture envelope 60 per cent goes to headage, which is a stated fact that I cannot change, 60 per cent goes to headage. On average only 30 per cent is given to this area in Spain, Greece and Portugal, the other objective one countries. The Deputy has a point that it should be a grant for capital works rather than social welfare income. However, when the Carney report suggested changes and I discussed minute changes for people over 66 years of age involving giving them a couple of years notice and introducing the targeting of money at smaller farmers, the farm organisations went berserk. The area was sacred and headage could not be touched.
I still have decisions to make about some modest adjustments to pay for the third tier and disadvantaged areas but, whoever is Minister when the next tranche arises, that question must be addressed if some parts of the country still have objective one status. Brussels is anxious that we spend more on the likes of CFP, but 1996 is the worst year in terms of the amount of money which can be introduced. A sum of £18.6 million or £18.7 million will be given to CFP this year, but it will be £40.3 million next year. The total amount for on farm investment will increase from £44 million to £59 million next year and there will be some alleviation of the position.
The difficulty I faced was that people wanted to go ahead with approval. They were under section 12 notices from local authorities and they said that if they could get approval they would wait for the money. I decided the best way to go for the 18,600 people involved was for the Department to process the applications of anybody who wanted approval. However, this was on the clear understanding that people had to visit their banks and explain that they would be paid the money, for example, a grant of £14,000 or £20,000, in 1997.
It is a loaves and fishes operation and I do not deny that point. It is not perfect administration and I do not know how many precedents exist. However, the best I could do in the circumstances was to ensure people got approval. Another problem faced by people who had to go ahead with work was that they could not get approval and they did not know if they would get a grant at all. This was worse if the work had to proceed. I admit it is imperfect.
Regarding Leader, there will be some savings this year as there will not be a draw down of approximately £2 million. This may be reallocated and spent elsewhere in the Department.
I thank the Minister and his officials for a most interesting and intelligent review of the Department. The Opposition spokespersons and other colleagues also made intelligent contributions.
Report of Select Committee.
I propose the following draft report:
The Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy has considered Estimates for public services for the service of the year ending 31 December 1996 in respect of the following Votes:
(i) Enterprise and Employment — Vote 34;
(ii) Marine — Vote 30;
(iii) Tourism and Trade — Vote 35;
(iv) Transport, Energy and Communications — Vote 18;
(v) Agriculture, Food and Forestry — Vote 31, and all other Estimates relevant to these Departments.
The Estimates are hereby reported to Dáil Éireann.
Is the report agreed? Agreed.
Report agreed to.
Ordered to report to the Dáil accordingly.
The Select Committee adjourned at 5.20 p.m.