Vol. 658 No. 1
82 Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will extend the date for the completion of buildings that have qualified under the farm waste management programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24360/08]
The farm waste management scheme was introduced by our Department in March 2006 in order to assist farmers to meet the additional requirements of the nitrates directive. Under the scheme, a standard grant rate of 60%, or 70% in the four zone C counties, was available, and €114 million was spent on this scheme in 2007. Payment claims substantially in excess of this figure are expected in 2008.
The success of the scheme is evidenced by the fact that 48,580 applications were received from farmers under the scheme before the closing date of 31 December 2006. To date, 41,750 approvals have issued to farmers to commence work. The remaining applications have either been withdrawn, are awaiting the receipt of full planning permission or are explained by the receipt of multiple applications from a single farmer. This Department is continuing to issue approvals on an ongoing basis as confirmation of the receipt of full planning permission is received from applicants and has already written to local authorities acknowledging the major contribution which they have made to this process, as well as reminding them of the importance of the end of 2008 deadline for completion of works under the scheme.
The 31 December 2008 deadline is a condition of the EU state aid approval governing the scheme. Farmers must complete the works and submit a payment claim to the Department by this date in order that they can qualify for the generous grants available. A notice has already been sent out by the Department to all approved farmers under the scheme reminding them of the importance of compliance with this deadline. I am not in a position to ask the EU Commission to alter the terms of the state aid approval.
Would it be helpful in determining the level of drawdown or feasible to write to all the applicants who now have approval? This is an EU-aided scheme but if the drawdown would be smaller it could open opportunities to open the farm investment scheme again. Writing to these farmers could advise them of the timeframe, which is impossible for them to comply with, and the Minister should take up that issue and engage positively with farming organisations on it in terms of social partnership. I understand the matter is being raised in that context. Writing to the farmers could also seek clear direction as to how many of them intend to draw down the offered funding.
I have no doubt there will be many items on the social partnership agenda, of which this will be one. I cannot pre-empt what will happen there.
We are working within the result of a lobbying effort to the European Commission. That has given us the date in question, and the Deputy will acknowledge there is not much room for movement on that basis. There is a dynamic which should be of assistance in ensuring work is carried out, which is the change in the construction industry. The Deputy knows that in rural areas, the farm waste management scheme has been very important to the number of bags of cement being sold, for example, up and down the country. I expect many builders are appreciating the work being carried out and that whatever difficulties there would be in complying with the 31 December deadline will, somewhat paradoxically, be helped by the fact that work will now be available that might have been difficult to engage builders on previously.
Given the importance of this scheme to environmental improvements and enhancement, which must clearly be very close to the Minister of State's heart, why has he such a resigned attitude to the strict closing date? Is it again a case of throwing the hands up and adopting a losing posture? Why do we not go to those in Europe and say we have almost 7,000 applicants out there still trying to get forms filled and work completed?
There are over 40,000.
The Minister indicated there were 48,580 applicants, of whom approximately 41,700 have put their forms in by the closing date? Is that correct?
Approximately 42,000 applications have been approved.
How many have gone through?
There have been 41,750 approvals.
There were 48,580 applications originally.
Some were withdrawn.
Almost 7,000 are left, along with the others mentioned by Deputy Creed. In many rural areas, the only trucks moving now are going on to farms with blocks, cement and everything else. Given the importance of this scheme not only to environmental enhancement and farm management structures, but to the construction industry and work in general in rural areas in particular, will the Minister of State go to Europe on this? We are not going cap in hand but on a very fundamental basis underlining the importance of this scheme to environmental issues, as well as health and safety issues.
I agree this is a very beneficial scheme, which is also generous. It is a once-off and it was very clear in March 2006, when it was introduced, that it was the time to get involved and get the work done. There has been much foot dragging, as the Deputy knows, over the years when it comes to the implementation of the directive in question.
Far from going cap in hand, we have received Exchequer funding and a willingness from the European Commission to ensure we finally got our act together. There has been a significant amount of flexibility brought to bear on this issue. This is the reason I do not want to give any impression that there is some kind of slippage and people should take their foot off the pedal in the implementation of the scheme and getting the work done.
I have written to local authorities to ensure they guarantee there are no delays in arranging permission and its side of the arrangement being complied with. I have circulated a notice to all approved farmers under the scheme reminding them of the importance of compliance. I do not want to give an impression that it may be possible to revisit the scheme. Unfortunately, when this was done in the past, it resulted in slippage and the foot being taken off the pedal. The Department wants the scheme to be implemented and the work done. I call on all concerned to pull together to ensure this occurs.
83 Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food his views on the recommendations contained in the report of the Competition Authority on veterinary practices; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25549/08]
The report on veterinary practitioners by the Competition Authority was published on 19 June. While the report found that legislation introduced by my Department in 2005 had gone a long way towards modernising the profession, it concluded that some reforms were still needed for consumers to benefit from competition. It has identified the following restrictions which it believes need to be addressed: veterinary practitioners are prevented from competing through normal methods of competition such as advertising and offering discounts; vets are severely restricted in how they advertise and promote their business, which denies consumers access to basic information on the availability, terms and prices of veterinary services in their area; vets are unable to promote awareness of their practices and services which discourages them from innovating; a lack of transparency in prices reduces competitive pressure on vets, which can push up the price of veterinary services; and new vets are hindered from competing with established vets.
The report makes five recommendations designed to address these restrictions and encourage vets to be more innovative in the delivery of services and ensure an adequate supply of veterinary services in the long term and value for money in veterinary services. The recommendations are directed to my Department and the Veterinary Council of Ireland. They are that the Department should monitor the number of vets providing food animal services, consider the introduction of lay testers for bovine tuberculosis and bring forward legislation amending the Veterinary Practice Act 2005 to allow incorporated veterinary practices. In addition, the Veterinary Council of Ireland should remove unnecessary restrictions on advertising and its prohibition on touting.
The Department will examine these recommendations in consultation with the Veterinary Council of Ireland and relevant interests. However, it is favourably disposed towards the further promotion of competition in the veterinary profession, thereby building on the measures it has introduced in recent years, particularly in the animal remedies area.
One often wonders whether members of the Competition Authority live in the real world. Many isolated rural communities are fortunate if one veterinarian decides to locate in the area. While it is fine to speak about improving the veterinary service, does the Department really believe some of the theoretical propositions made by the Competition Authority have any application in rural areas? Do those who produce reports such as this have any contact with reality?
As in the case of general practitioners, persuading a veterinary practitioner to move to an area to serve its farming community often presents a challenge. Has the Minister of State considered the possibility that the points system at college level is the major factor in curtailing the number of veterinary practitioners? The supply of vets is the limiting factor because one cannot promote competition without adequate numbers of veterinary practitioners.
We all want value for money. From my experience of dealing with many veterinary practices during the years, I have found they give value for money and an excellent service.
Is the Department considering legislative changes arising from the report of the Competition Authority? To expand on Deputy Penrose's point, a significant number of veterinary practitioners have moved from large to small animal practices. This ongoing shift is evident in rural areas. I understand the Department has an obligation to monitor developments under existing legislation. Are trends emerging in this area which would give cause for concern?
Given that the report was received as recently as 19 June, the Department needs time to study it in greater detail. Nevertheless, nothing has been ruled out. The lack of availability of veterinary practitioners, a point raised by Deputy Penrose, is one of the reasons the Competition Authority has called for advertising rules to be relaxed so as to ensure greater innovation and competition. Serious consideration should also be given to introducing lay testing for tuberculosis but I do not propose to rush to judgment on this recommendation. We are aware that a degree of lay testing takes place in New Zealand and the United Kingdom. We have an opportunity to act on recommendations but it is much too early to give definitive commitments. Nothing has been ruled out at this point.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
