Vol. 892 No. 1
1. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the progress made to date in rolling out the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme; the changes to the second tranche of the scheme; the reason for these changes; when farmers will be informed of the decision on their applications for the current tranche; the expected expenditure on the scheme in 2015 and in 2016; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34253/15]
When the Minister announced the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, he said it was targeted, between 2014 and 2020, on reaching 50,000 farmers at an average payment of €5,000, and when he launched the first tranche of the scheme, he said it would reach 30,000 farmers at a payment €5,000. He mentioned repeatedly the figure of €5,000. It appears as if there could be a 25% shortfall in the expenditure on the first tranche of the scheme. The Minister announced a second tranche of the scheme but he has cut that back severely. Is he satisfied he will achieve his target of reaching 50,000 farmers at an average payment of €5,000? I presume he will increase the number to 60,000 if the average payment is less than that figure. Will he advise why there are these cutbacks so early in the scheme which will hurt farmers?
First, there are no cutbacks early in the scheme. Second, we always said the maximum payment for GLAS was €5,000, or €7,000 for GLAS+. We also said that we thought the average payment would be very close to the maximum payment of €5,000 because the majority of farmers would be able to draw down the full amount. Let us be accurate about what was said rather than trying to change things.
The first tranche of GLAS has proved to be hugely successful, attracting nearly 27,000 applicants in all. Applications were received from every single county and virtually every action was selected at some stage. On the basis of the interest shown to date, I have no doubt that GLAS will succeed in attracting the 50,000 applications projected over the lifetime of the scheme. We have a projected figure of about €250 million of expenditure per year when the full 50,000 applicants are in the scheme, but we always said this would have to happen on a phased basis. Farming organisations bought into that at the time. We have 27,000 applications now. We will open applications for tranche two next week, which will take into another 10,000. Therefore, we will have roughly 36,000 farmers in GLAS by next year, with the second tranche starting from 1 January. We will then progress after that to move up to the full 50,000 applicants when we can afford to do it. Nobody was suggesting or expecting that we would have the full 50,000 applicants in the scheme in the first year. That would be totally unrealistic.
I expect that the first approvals for GLAS will issue next week or very shortly thereafter. On the basis of the expected intake, expenditure this year on GLAS will be €20 million. Preparations for the discussions on 2016 Estimate for next year are under way and we will hear much more about that next week.
Thank you, Minister.
I will come back to this later.
Will the Minister confirm that in respect of tranche 1, farmers will get paid from 1 October this year? Will he further confirm that those payments will issue by Christmas-----
Today is 7 October. The Deputy asked if they will be paid by 1 October.
Will the contract date be 1 October or will it be the date they are notified by the Minister's Department that they have been accepted into the scheme?
Okay.
There seem to be confusing messages on that. Will those farmers be paid by Christmas? The Minister seems to be indicating they will. Where there are prime work plans and where commonages are not yet prepared and may not be prepared for some considerable time, will those farmers get paid with effect from 1 October this year and will they get paid by Christmas this year?
The IFA has sought funding of €250 million next year for 50,000 GLAS and agri-environment options scheme, AEOS, participants in 2016. Will the Minister confirm whether €250 million will be provided for GLAS and AEOS next year?
We want to pay out on GLAS for the last three months of this year - October, November and December - which is what we said we would do and which we are seeking to deliver. We are also seeking to take in as many new applicants under tranche 2 as we can. We have put a figure of 10,000 on that. We will not have 50,000 farmers in GLAS next year, rather we will have about 36,000 in it.
That is always what I said I would do and I have been totally consistent in this regard. When people asked initially about the maximum number of people to come into GLAS, many people were talking about 15,000 or 20,000 farmers. We have taken in 27,000 farmers and are now about to take in another 10,000. Of course, farming organisations have a job to do in lobbying me to try to get as many farmers into GLAS as they can, and I respect that. I will deliver as many as I can, but we have to operate within budgets that are growing year on year. Agriculture will have an increasing budget every year between now and 2020. We have secured that and delivered it in terms of the rural development programme. However, all the farming organisations that have been involved in this discussion know that we cannot do it overnight, so we will build up to it. Next year, we will have 36,000 while the following year we will take in another tranche to bring it up as soon as we can to the full 50,000 and spend the full €250 million on GLAS that is envisaged as soon as that can be afforded.
What the IFA sought, and what I asked the Minister, was whether, between AEOS and GLAS, because there will be farmers left in AEOS next year-----
We will sort it out, yes.
-----the Minister will have 50,000 farmers and there will be a total gross expenditure of €250 million. As the Minister knows, the later people join GLAS, the bigger the proportion of the payment that will not fall under this rural development programme. It will fall into the next RDP, but the commitment in the RDP is for €1.25 billion. In fact, it is €1.4 billion for environmental schemes in total but €1.25 billion for GLAS within this RDP. I understand that part of that GLAS payment is rural environment protection scheme and AEOS spillover from the previous RDP. The first question, which is quite simple, is whether we will spend €250 million between REPS and AEOS. The second question is whether contracts will be backdated to 1 October to enable this payment to be made, as the Minister said, for October, November and December. Third, will the Minister pay for commonage measures even where those commonage plans have not been completed by the end of the year or may only be completed through three or four weeks? It is a very slow process walking all these commonages and preparing reports.
I call on the Minister to conclude.
I am delivering what I said I would deliver, which is to increase incrementally and as quickly as we can the numbers coming into GLAS to get expenditure up to the maximum we have committed to under the scheme. We are getting there faster than I think most people predicted, but it cannot happen overnight and everybody understands that.
There is a particular challenge with putting commonage GLAS in place, something the Deputy and I have spoken about many times. That is why we are showing significant flexibility in giving time to get full sign-off on those GLAS plans. There will be plenty of time to get that finished.
In the meantime, farmers will be paid as long as they have committed to adherence to that plan, even before it is fully finalised and signed off. The commitment they are making in commonage areas will ensure they get early receipt of their GLAS payment, which is about as flexible as we could possibly be. A huge number of commonage farmers are now part of the GLAS commonage project. It has been very successful as anyone would have to accept. When one looks at what is being committed to now in terms of some of the headline outcomes from GLAS, they are hugely successful. They include hectarage covered as well as commitments to hedgerows, native trees, orchards and stone walling. Some 90,000 bird boxes and 80,000 bat boxes are to be erected in addition to protecting 3,000 archaeological monuments and planting 8,000 hectares of wild bird cover. GLAS is about delivering sustainable outcomes across farmland in rural Ireland and paying farmers properly to do that. We will have 50,000 farmers as part of that scheme within the next few years. There will be a cross-section across all farming activities, but in particular there will be a very strong cohort of commonage farmers.
2. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine further to Question No. 480 of 22 September 2015, the reason, having considered all the facts, he and his Department have not recommended prosecution in this case. [34452/15]
On 4 June 2014, the Minister initiated an investigation into a milk producer having his milk collection accredited to another milk supplier. The Minister was also investigating whether the activity was being facilitated by a senior milk producer. In reply to a question that I tabled on 22 September 2015, the Minister initially stated that he was getting the Chief State Solicitor to investigate the matter. In his reply to me, the Minister said, "Having regard to an opinion from the Chief State Solicitor’s Office, and having considered all of the facts, the recommendation from my Department is that on balance, a prosecution is not warranted in this instance." Will the Minister explain the opinion from the Chief State Solicitor and why no prosecution is taking place in this case?
I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. My Department has carried out an investigation into allegations that milk collections from a milk supplier were credited to another milk supplier and that this was being facilitated by the milk purchaser concerned. Having received the report on the investigation, I instructed that a number of corrective actions be undertaken by all parties concerned, including the reallocation of milk to the original supplier and the payment of the superlevy fine by the supplier concerned. All such corrective actions were completed within the relevant milk quota year, and the end-of-year annual declaration for the milk producers concerned reflected the adjusted and correct position.
In addition to requiring the above actions, I also instructed that the relevant papers be sent to the Chief State Solicitor's office for advice on whether offences had been committed and, if so, the possibility and likelihood of a successful prosecution. The Chief State Solicitor's office subsequently appointed a prosecuting counsel to examine the facts of the case and this counsel’s report was forwarded to my Department. My Department subsequently met the senior counsel to discuss the report. Having regard to counsel’s opinion and to all the circumstances in this case, my Department recommended that a prosecution should not be pursued and I accepted this recommendation.
In making its recommendation, my Department took a number of matters into account, including the likelihood of a successful prosecution given the details of the case and the standard of proof required, the fact there was no financial gain for any of the parties concerned, the fact the parties’ obligations under the milk quota regulations had ultimately been met, that all superlevies due were paid in full and, most important, that there was no financial loss to other farmers, the Exchequer or to the EU. My Department is completing a full compliance verification audit of the processor concerned.
I do not understand how a milk producer 110 miles away from Clongowes Wood supplied Clongowes Wood with 500,000 litres of milk which in turn supplied Glanbia and the outcome of all this was that no prosecution took place. What is quite clear to me is that there was sleight of hand with 500,000 litres of milk being transferred 110 miles to Clongowes Wood which in turn sold that milk to Glanbia. The architects of this were a manager in Clongowes Wood and a manager in Glanbia. It is only when this came to light through John Mooney in The Sunday Times newspaper that an investigation was initiated. The investigation lasted 15 months, from June 2014 to September 2015. It is clear that here was an attempt to commit fraud which was successful until it was brought to light and an investigation took place. The Minister has not clarified whether the Chief State Solicitor said that a prosecution should have taken place. We do not know that.
I was also concerned about this case.
As soon as I heard about it, we initiated an investigation straight away. There were multiple interviews, some of them taken under caution. The matter was taken extremely seriously by my Department. The investigation has not been going on for 14 or 15 months. We had a very intensive investigation initially, as soon as we heard about this case. We needed to get to the bottom of it and we did get to the bottom of what was happening. When we completed our investigation, we sent the file then to the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. I instructed that the case would go to the Chief State Solicitor's office because I wanted an opinion from outside the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine as I felt the case merited that. The Chief State Solicitor's office asked a senior counsel to look at the matter. A report was made to us and we had a meeting on the back of that in the Department. I must go on the basis of the legal advice and recommendations I get.
Having said that, we did not leave it at that. Actions have been taken on the back of this and superlevies have been paid. We have undertaken a full audit and got a full report from the processor concerned in terms of how this could have happened and to ensure it cannot happen again. A lot has taken place in a very firm way. This should not have happened. I was very unhappy that it did happen and I made that view very strongly known to everybody concerned. We had a full investigation on what happened, who was involved and how it could have happened. We also referred the matter to the Chief State Solicitor's office for it to take a look at it. From our perspective, we have taken the matter as seriously as we could have and we have taken the appropriate action on the basis of the legal advice received.
I am informed that the initial producer was and still is on the board of Glanbia. The levies that were repaid were retrospective and were only paid when the individual was caught out. It is a classic case of a fraudulent attempt to get away with more than €300,000 worth of milk, some 5.5 million litres.
It is more than a year since I first raised the matter. In fairness, I have been corresponding with the Minister through parliamentary questions and by other means. In June of this year, the Minister had still not heard back from the Chief State Solicitor's office. In response to another parliamentary question on 22 September, I learned that the Minister had received a reply from the Chief State Solicitor's office. There was a reference to "having regard to his opinion". What was the opinion of the Chief State Solicitor's office? Did the office suggest proceeding with a prosecution? The situation is that somebody on the board of a major processing company in this country was a party to a fraud involving €300,000. It is very damaging for the entire industry that people would be allowed to get away with that.
First, people did not get away with it.
Retrospective payments were made but there was no sanction.
What happened is that a concern was raised and we investigated it immediately. We interviewed people under caution without notice. We took a very serious view of what we understood to be the situation. The investigation happened straight away. The investigation has not taken 14 months; it took place straight away and was concluded within weeks but we then handed over the file to the Chief State Solicitor's office who looked at it from a legal perspective, which is a different perspective, and asked that the office would come back to us with a recommendation as to whether we were likely to secure a prosecution. I had to make a decision on the basis of that advice.
Who made the decision?
Having taken the actions we could take to remedy the situation, to fully audit the processor concerned and to get a full and detailed account from the processor concerned of how its systems could have allowed that to happen, we took all the actions we could. I have taken legal advice on the basis of the Chief State Solicitor's legal advice as to whether we were likely to succeed in taking a prosecution and I have taken my decision on the back of that. It is that straightforward.
3. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the progress that has been made on implementing recommendation No. 10 of the Joint Sub-Committee on Fisheries report on promoting sustainable rural coastal and island communities regarding the issuing of heritage licences; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34379/15]
The question relates to the report of the Joint Sub-Committee on Fisheries on promoting sustainable rural coastal and island communities and the recommendations in that regard concerning heritage licences. Could the Minister indicate what progress has been made on the implementation of the recommendations in the report?
The recommendation to which the Deputy refers requests that the Government examines the feasibility of heritage licences to be issued by the Department for rural coastal and island communities. The intended objective of such licences is, according to the report, to optimally facilitate traditional fishing practices in conjunction with the establishment of a producer organisation representing vessels under a certain length overall, LOA, in these designated areas.
With regard to representation for the rural coastal and island fishing communities, in May 2014 I announced the establishment of innovative consultative structures to bring Ireland’s inshore fishing communities into discussions on the future of Ireland’s seafood industry. In recognition of the need to take a different approach to communicating with Ireland’s small-scale coastal fishermen in view of the very low level of professional trade representation for this part of the industry, both regional and national structures have been put in place. The newly established National Inshore Fisheries Forum, NIFF, and Regional Inshore Fisheries Forums, RIFFs, provide areas for inshore fishermen to develop proposals on inshore fisheries management, including compliance and data gathering. The inshore forums are representative of the “under 12 m” fishing fleet, the fishing boats of less than 12 m overall length and their focus is on fisheries management in the coastal waters within six nautical miles.
To date, the four NIFF meetings have led to very constructive two-way conversations on issues of mutual concern, industry priorities, emerging policies and initiatives. As a result of the successful discussions with the forum, I have included NIFF members on the quota management advisory committee, the industry science fisheries partnership and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, EMFF operational programme monitoring committee. That gives the inshore sector a role in making recommendations on the allocation of Ireland’s quotas, on data collection and scientific research and, perhaps most importantly, on how funding is utilised. The NIFF is taking the industry lead in setting priorities for the policy development for the inshore sector and recommendations from the NIFF are taken very seriously by me. If there is a view among the inshore fishing industry that we should go down such a route to try to create special licensing and conditions around the inshore fleet, we will look at that and discuss it. We are already discussing a whole series of practical things we can do to help the sector, including the development of artisan fisheries, restricting recreational potting, for example, which has been a matter of concern for years and is now being acted on for the first time, or the measure suggested by the Deputy. We will examine the matter in detail but it must be in the context of a discussion with the overall fishing industry to make sure that it will work within the context of the Common Fisheries Policy.
I ask Members to please keep an eye on the clock. We are way over time.
The question was really not about the NIFF or the RIFFs. The joint sub-committee compiled a report. It will be two years' in January since the report was published. The committee heard from a wide range of inshore fishing interests and recommendations were made by an all-party committee of the Oireachtas. It seems to me that no discussion has been taking place within the Department. One of the recommendations called for by the inshore and island fishermen was that the committee would recommend the issuing of heritage licences, which it did. Almost two years later the Department has not done anything to examine the matter. It seems that the recommendation has not even been suggested by the Department to the inshore fisheries body to examine how the system could be developed and whether it would be feasible. Given the fact that an all-party Oireachtas committee report has recommended the approach, the Department should take it seriously.
The Department does take it seriously. It takes equally seriously the relationship it has developed with the inshore sector. There have been four meetings to date, all of which I have attended. We now have an opportunity to discuss a whole range of issues. Many of the recommendations in the Oireachtas committee's report have been acted upon and more will be acted upon. In regard to Oireachtas committee reports generally, in terms of how a Department responds to them, this one scores pretty well. There are restrictions and regulations within which we have to operate. Any new licensing system must be consistent with the new Common Fisheries Policy regulations.
The Deputy asked that the Department of rural, coastal and island communities make a decision on that, but no such Department exists. I am the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine. We will look at this, but only in the context of what is practical and real and within the parameters of the regulations within which I must operate.
As I understand it, the Common Fisheries Policy allows member states, in developing policy in this area, to give preference to coastal and rural communities and small fisheries communities. It is up to each member state to develop that policy under the Common Fisheries Policy. As inshore fisheries is not covered by the Common Fisheries Policy, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has the discretion to examine this and to devise a policy in that regard.
The Minister stated that what I am looking for is the creation of a new licensing regime. Surely the remit of the Department includes the development and protection of fishermen and rural communities. The committee's recommendation that the Department examine this issue is mild, but two years down the road it is not being actively examined.
Two years down the road, it is being actively examined. That is what the Department is doing in terms of recreational fisheries, for example. We are changing that structure. We are introducing limits that will be imposed on recreational fishermen so that we can create more space for commercial fishermen. We are also expanding our V-notching programme and we have increased the compensation payments that fishermen get for putting back lobsters to improve breeding performance and so on. The Department has been working on multiple measures in terms of increasing funding and increasing the conversation, including with inshore fishermen, on policy development, budgetary decisions and quota allocation decisions in a way that they have never before been included. There has never been more interaction on a policy or funding level between the inshore sector and the Government than there is now. It would be helpful for the Deputy to recognise that.
4. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his plans to provide matching funding from the Exchequer to top up the €500 million European Union package of aid to the Irish dairy and pig sectors; the method by which this money will be distributed between farmers; if the payment will be confined to dairy farmers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34254/15]
As the Minister is aware, money has been made available by the European Union to assist the dairy and pig sectors. I am seeking from the Minister information on how this money is to be disbursed, if national co-financing will be provided and when payments will be made.
The Deputy's questions are fair. A package worth €500 million has been secured, which is a really good delivery by Commissioner Hogan, because the expectation was that the package would be a lot less. Approximately €420 million of the funding will be spent on what are called national envelopes to enable a positive impact within countries on the income of dairy and pig farmers. Ireland's allocation is just under €14 million. There is a facility through which, if we want, we can match that funding with Exchequer funding. My Department is in discussions on the matter with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. We need approval to provide matching funding, because to facilitate that we would have to change our Estimates. Those discussions have not yet concluded.
We had a good discussion with all of the stakeholders at the first dairy forum meeting, which took place last week. The recommendation from farming organisations was that we consider the introduction of a flat payment for farmers, which would positively discriminate in favour of smaller farmers in terms of payments. Macra na Feirme made clear that it would like to see some level of top-up or priority for younger farmers, who may be more indebted because they are trying to grow their businesses, and may be under more pressure than dairy farmers who have been around longer. I agree with those recommendations. The Department's proposals in this regard have not yet been finalised but will be based on those principles. I do not propose to pay farmers on the basis of the amount of milk they produce and, therefore, give larger farmers more money. I do not think that is where the need is. In terms of the final outcome, I think most farmers, regardless of size, will receive similar payments. We may consider giving a top-up to young farmers to encourage them, which is something I have been consistently trying to do. We will work towards getting the payments out as soon as possible. I am certain they will be made within the next six weeks.
I thank the Minister for the information provided at the end of his reply, which is most useful because, as he will be aware, farmers want their payments now. Will the Minister confirm whether these direct payments will be paid to pig and dairy farmers or to dairy farmers only? Also, in the context of a top-up for our farmers, is that top-up likely to be in the region of 20%? Am I correct that the payment, unless matched with Exchequer funding, will be approximately €800 per farmer? People are anxious to know the likely amount they will receive.
It is true that farmers want to be paid as soon as possible from a cashflow point of view. On 16 October, a 75% advance payment on single farm payments will be made, which will amount to €750 million in payments to farmers, €250 million more than would normally be given out at that time of year. This is one of a number of measures to help farmers in terms of cashflow. There will be a lot of money coming farmers' way in the next few weeks.
In terms of this particular package, I do not want to give the Deputy an exact figure because no decision has been made yet on the likely top-up amount for young farmers. While I would like to give a top-up, it may not amount to a 20% or 25% top-up.
On pig farmers, I am not sure we will take the same approach to pig farmers as we do to dairy farmers. I need to speak to the industry to understand what they want. The only conversation we have had to date has been with the dairy sector in terms of how it would like money to be paid out. We want to get that done quickly. I agree that pig farmers are also under pressure, but they are under a different structure from dairy farmers in that many of them run large operations and as such are much bigger, and also, there are not as many of them as there are dairy farmers. We need to sit down and discuss with pig farmers how they would like us to spend the limited resources available for them.
The amount of money cannot be confirmed until a final decision on whether the Exchequer will provide matching funding has been made.
Will the Minister confirm that the funding provided by Europe will be of the magnitude spoken about? I accept that the Exchequer funding issue is still up in the air. On Exchequer funding and the Minister's ability to get this money for the dairy sector, the sheep sector is also under huge pressure. The grassland scheme has been withdrawn from that sector. Perhaps the Minister, when seeking funding for the dairy sector, will also seek funding for a direct payment scheme for sheep farmers, which, as he will be aware, is being sought on behalf of that sector by the farming organisations such as the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers' Association and the Irish Farmers' Association. Will the Minister ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform for an equivalent amount of money to be paid on a pro rata basis to sheep farmers?
This is populist stuff that the Deputy knows is not possible. There is no additional package for sheep farmers. What we are talking about is a fund provided by Europe of €500 million to support the dairy and pigmeat sectors because they have particular pricing problems this year.
The price of lamb has not collapsed this year. I know sheep farmers are under pressure, which is why we made a decision as part of the new Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, to decouple the sheep grassland scheme. In order to protect that €17 million or so, we decoupled it and added it directly to single farm payments to make sure they could hold on to it.
The Minister knows the majority of them will not because they are under the €150 per hectare. Over the period of this CAP, that money is going to amount to nothing. If the Minister does not know that, he should.
The Minister to conclude.
That is not true. Deputy Ó Cuív was one of the people looking for redistribution. To argue against redistribution for a sheep farmer because he has the sheep grassland scheme factored in to his single farm payment----
I am not arguing against redistribution. The Minister always twists what I say.
The Minister has the floor.
Deputy Ó Cuív is wanting it both ways.
I do not. I want redistribution and I want the farmer to keep his sheep payment.
He is uncomfortable with that, which is why he is questioning me now.
The Minister to conclude.
We have taken every opportunity we can to support the sheep sector. We will do that through targeted agricultural modernisation schemes, TAMS and single farm payments in terms of redistribution, where sheep farmers are the big winners. We also did it when we decoupled and added to a sheep farmer's single farm payment what he would previously have been getting under the sheep grassland scheme.
Deputy Ó Cuív knows what the rural development programme, RDP, looks like now. He also knows that if we are going to change or introduce a new scheme that has not been provided for in it, we would need formally to change the RDP with the Commission. That takes time. There is no plan to introduce a separate headage payment type scheme, which seems to be what the Deputy is looking for. If he was in my position he would not be able to do it either.
I would not have done what the Minister did in the first place.
Exactly. Farming would be a lot worse off.
It would be a lot better off. The vast majority of farmers would be a lot better off.
Please, Deputy Ferris has the floor.
I dealt with the price issue and a fair CAP.
We have introduced the maximum CAP.
I am sorry. Deputy Martin Ferris.
Are they finished?
Go on, please, Deputy Ferris, make some progress.
5. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the number of farmers who have applied for the beef data and genomics programme; the number who have subsequently withdrawn from the programme; and if he will provide a breakdown, by county. [34453/15]
I have a question regarding the number of farmers who have applied for the beef data genomics programme. There are a lot of rumours about the percentage of farmers who have withdrawn and the numbers withdrawing on a daily basis. There is certainly much confusion and maybe dissatisfaction. Could the Minister clarify this, please?
Beef accounts for 35% of the gross output of the agriculture sector. Beef exports in 2014 amounted to 524,000 tonnes, worth €2.27 billion. The suckler herd is a critical component of this industry. The beef data and genomics programme, BDGP, is a response to these challenges and opportunities, and particularly to the challenges associated with improved breeding performance, including for maternal traits such as cow fertility, and the very onerous requirements to reduce the percentage of Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions which comes from the agriculture sector. Improving the genetics of the suckler herd can make a positive contribution in both of these areas while also improving the economic viability of suckler farming.
The BDGP provides targeted support to suckler farmers. It builds on the success of the State’s investment of over €9 million in the beef data programme in each of 2013 and 2014 and on the success of the pilot beef genomics scheme, which involved investment of around €23 million last year. The scheme was launched on 5 May last as part of Ireland’s rural development programme, RDP, and involves funding of some €300 million over six years. Scheme participants will receive a payment of €142.50 for the first 6.66 hectares and €120 for each hectare thereafter, up to a maximum payable hectarage. That is the equivalent of about €95 per cow for the first number of animals. In return for this payment, participants will be required to undertake six actions, some of which will be well known to suckler farmers through their participation in previous schemes.
In recent weeks, the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation has issued every scheme applicant with detailed reports of the current status of animals in their herds. Participants will receive similar information about the scheme and their individual herd on an ongoing basis. This is in addition to a training programme which will be rolled out over the next 12 months. I have also announced a series of information meetings for participating farmers which will commence next week.
It is clear from the large number of applications received for the BDGP that farmers recognise the benefits this scheme can deliver locally and nationally. Just under 30,000 farmers applied to join the scheme and the number of those who have since exited the scheme, equivalent to about 5% of applicants, is more or less in line with previous suckler-based schemes run by my Department.
The figures as requested are set out in the table which the Deputy will get, if he does not have it. The table outlines per county the number of applicants and the numbers of farmers who have withdrawn. The counties that have the most applicants obviously have the most withdrawals, as one would expect. The predictions some were making that huge numbers would withdraw from the scheme simply have not come true.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
|
County |
Applied |
Withdrew |
|
CARLOW |
388 |
13 |
|
CAVAN |
1396 |
75 |
|
CLARE |
2294 |
141 |
|
CORK |
2030 |
56 |
|
DONEGAL |
1596 |
70 |
|
DUBLIN |
76 |
1 |
|
GALWAY |
3287 |
186 |
|
KERRY |
1574 |
64 |
|
KILDARE |
368 |
14 |
|
KILKENNY |
701 |
17 |
|
LAOIS |
721 |
33 |
|
LEITRIM |
1186 |
77 |
|
LIMERICK |
979 |
36 |
|
LONGFORD |
787 |
44 |
|
LOUTH |
264 |
8 |
|
MAYO |
2963 |
251 |
|
MEATH |
715 |
35 |
|
MONAGHAN |
1084 |
52 |
|
OFFALY |
707 |
28 |
|
ROSCOMMON |
1730 |
122 |
|
SLIGO |
1156 |
61 |
|
TIPPERARY |
1188 |
33 |
|
WATERFORD |
425 |
17 |
|
WESTMEATH |
888 |
41 |
|
WEXFORD |
690 |
27 |
|
WICKLOW |
477 |
17 |
|
29670 |
1519 |
Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his reply. I think initially he was hoping 35,000 people would join the scheme. By 5 June around 30,000 applicants had applied. I have seen figures suggesting ten people a day were withdrawing from the scheme. Other people were saying 700 farmers had withdrawn previously. Earlier this month the Department said there was a 2% withdrawal rate. Is the Minister now saying it is 5%?
It is in my reply.
Finish the question, Deputy Ferris, and I will go back to the Minister then.
Certainly the information meetings are badly wanted and there is confusion. When people are very worried and confused and do not have enough information, rumours can start and that is how people start to withdraw. It is very important that those information meetings take place. All of us who are involved in politics would like to make sure people get the best out of that programme. The Minister needs to clarify much of the information.
Let me just be clear. When we launched the scheme we probably should have had more information meetings earlier. I accept that. I attended a number of the meetings myself. While there were a lot of people who were concerned about elements of the scheme, I do not think those concerns were well founded in many cases. We have managed to clarify a lot of those things.
I have written to everybody in the scheme outlining the scheme, its requirements, how it is going to work and how we are going to help farmers to make sure it works for them. We will spend about €44 million or €45 million on the scheme this year. One of the commitments I gave to all farming organisations was that we would get a lot of payments out this year on the schemes. We now have a lot of farmers looking to come in to the scheme who did not decide to enter it at the start but are now reassured by the messages that have gone out. They want to be part of the scheme and cannot get in. There are also some farmers deciding that maybe it is not for them. That is fine too; it happens with every scheme.
Thank you, Minister.
There is no mass exodus here. I would like to reassure farmers that this is a really good scheme. In ten or 15 years it will prove to be one of the most innovative schemes that has ever been introduced in any European country in terms of upgrading the genetics of a herd and providing farmers with more and more accurate scientific information about better breeding programmes. It is a huge income support for beef farmers. Most importantly, it will improve the quality of our herd which means cattle will grow faster and have better conformation and fertility rates. They will make more money for farmers and will produce fewer emissions in their lifetimes.
Thank you, Minister.
Ultimately, that is what a €300 million scheme over the next six years is all about. I think most farmers would now agree that the qualification criteria and benchmarks they have to meet on that journey are very achievable in the timescale that has been outlined. In fact, the vast majority of farmers are already where they would need to be by about 2018.
The Minister said that a number of farmers are trying to get into the scheme now and cannot. Is that because the closing date is gone? Can they get in next year?
We will take a look at that. I obviously want to spend the full amount of money that we have allocated for the scheme over the six years. We now need to consider whether we can afford to take more farmers in, how we could do that, who the farmers are and whether we should prioritise younger farmers or new entrants.
That is a decision we will make next year when we see how much money we are spending. I want as many suckler beef farmers in this scheme as we can get because it is a really good scheme and I want to ensure we spend the full €300 million on the scheme over its lifetime. We will figure out how best to do that and we will obviously discuss that with farming organisations to ensure they are comfortable with it.
