This meeting is for the consideration of the Revised Estimates of the Departments of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and the Marine and Natural Resources. The select committee is to consider these Estimates pursuant to an order of the Dáil of 28 February 2002, paragraph (1)(a)(ii) of the Orders of Reference of Select Committees, and to report back to the Dáil in accordance with Standing Order 79. On behalf of the select committee I welcome the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and his officials. We will hear from the Minister first and then from the Opposition spokespersons and other Deputies.
Estimates for Public Services, 2002.
Vote 31 - Office of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (Revised).
I am pleased to have the opportunity of meeting the select committee to discuss the 2002 Revised Estimates. I propose firstly to speak about the context in which they have been drawn up and then to set out the key priorities for which funding is being allocated. After that I will comment on the main subheads and commend the Estimates to the committee.
The year 2001 presented exceptional threats to the farming and food sectors. The first diagnoses of BSE cases in EU member states in late 2000 caused severe market disruption. In response, increased market supports were introduced: initially the purchase for destruction scheme and later the special purchase scheme. At Community level, consumer protection was also enhanced through a move towards routine testing for BSE of older animals presented for slaughter. Following this, the significant number of foot and mouth cases in the UK and spillover into neighbouring countries showed us how vulnerable animal health, farm incomes and markets could be to an issue which had been dead for decades.
This was successfully contained with heightened controls, emergency legislation and a unique national response. The Exchequer contributed some €250 million through the Agriculture Vote and more in other ways. Gradually the risks receded and by the end of the year, far from having to report a collapse in incomes and markets, we were able to say that aggregate farm incomes rose by 5.8% to €2.5 billion. This followed an increase of 7.5% in 2000. Direct payments from the Department in 2001 amounted to €1,397 million, an increase of 5.6% on 2000. This followed an increase of 7.5% in the year 2000. In 2001, direct payments by the Department amounted to €1,387 million, an increase of 5.6% on 2000. These payments accounted for 57% of farm income.
A record gross Estimate of €1.496 billion is proposed for 2002. This is 5% more than the previous record in 2001. Taking into account increased EU receipts relating to the closure of the 1994-99 round of structural funds, some new Structural Funds and veterinary fund payments relating to 2001, the net Estimate proposed is just over €944 million.
The main priorities in the 2002 Estimates are the protection of health and markets, the implementation of the national development plan, research into agriculture and food and the continued modernisation of the Department. There is an emphasis on rural development in sustaining well-proven initiatives such as Leader and reaching out with infrastructural support to areas which have suffered great population decline. Support is also made available to State bodies in order to stimulate economic growth and exploit markets through targeted advice, research and assistance to particular sectors on a partnership basis.
Protection of health, both human and animal, is essential to the reputation and development of our agriculture and food sectors. The consumer must be satisfied that the range of preventative and precautionary controls in place is systematic, effective and offers full traceability. Those paying for the controls must be confident that the expenditure gives value for money. Neither the science nor consumer concerns are static. We have to be able to adapt at short notice and anticipate future expectations.
To meet these concerns, the Estimates provide for some €200 million under subheads C1 to C6 for disease control and cattle and beef tracing. In particular, subhead C3 provides for compensation for depopulation of herds following a diagnosis of BSE. It also provides for testing of animals for BSE at the point of slaughter, the fallen animals scheme, for which €200 million has been provided and a contribution to waste disposal.
Subhead C3 will also cover the destruction of meat and bonemeal stocks built up in 2001. As Deputies will be aware, the 2001 banning of meat and bonemeal as a feed has resulted in the storage of what was previously considered a high-protein feed for pigs and poultry. It is now treated as a waste product. The change in status of this product has not altered its treatment in terms of production standards and security of storage. Even before the feed ban, Ireland had been conscious of the need to safely store meat and bonemeal and to ensure that it did not reach ruminant animals.
The major change in Ireland has been the need to support the rendering industry in the face of the total collapse of its feed markets. It was also necessary to identify and control secure stores, ensuring that the final product is disposed of in a safe and environmentally-friendly manner. At present, there are 200,000 tonnes of meat and bonemeal in secure stores. These are under the control of officials of the Department, which has financially supported the movement of meat and bonemeal to the continent for disposal. To ensure that the taxpayer receives good value for the measure of subsidy provided, disposal is organised using EU-wide tenders to obtain the best possible price in line with the safest means of disposal. It is hoped that more than 100,000 tonnes of Irish meat and bonemeal will be destroyed on the Continent this year.
The question that is frequently asked is why a material which is recognised in Europe as a renewable energy source is not being used to heat homes, produce cement and steel and generate electricity in the country. I hope this issue will be addressed by the regulatory authorities, Departments and the private sector in the near future.
As a consequence of the BSE crisis on the Continent in 2000, third country markets closed to EU beef and EU consumption dropped significantly. The Commission put support arrangements in place, designed to deal with these developments. These included the extension of the ban on meat and bonemeal as a food source for cattle, extending the definition of specific risk material, BSE testing of animals over 30 months and the purchase for destruction scheme, along with its successor, the special purchase scheme. A more flexible form of intervention was also introduced.
Between January and June 2001, the purchase for destruction scheme removed 278,000 Irish animals from the market. The special purchase scheme removed 67,000 tonnes of cow beef in the latter half of the year and in the first two months of this year. In addition, 8,100 tonnes of beef went into intervention. These measures were extremely effective in supporting cattle prices at a time of major crisis in the beef sector right across the EU. However, the measures were co-financed by the EU and national exchequers of member states. The cost to the Irish Exchequer was €200 million, giving evidence of the Government's commitment to supporting the beef industry.
Costs relating to the special purchase scheme and the incineration of the stocks purchased under the purchase for destruction scheme will be financed from subhead L1, for which €97 million is provided in 2002. The Exchequer covers all of the running costs for these measures, as well as 30% of the cost of purchase. Ireland has been the most active among member states in implementing and ensuring prompt payment under these schemes.
In all, some €250 million, or a quarter of the Estimate, will be allocated to the rural development programme - REPS, early retirement and compensatory allowances. Ireland was perhaps the first member state to see the contribution that agri-environment measures such as REPS could make to the agriculture sector as a whole and to adopt a broad-based approach. Our take-up of EU funds in this area has been well ahead of our share in Community agriculture. For the 2000-06 round, the percentage level of EU support is capped for each measure. The early retirement measure drops from 75% to 50%, with a corresponding increase in the Exchequer contribution.
Expenditure of €84 million is forecast on agricultural and rural development measures. These include on-farm investment and installation aid, which have been personal priorities for me in this term of government. When the approval of the plan was delayed in Brussels, I obtained Commission clearance for interim national measures funded by the Exchequer, which allowed farmers to pursue developments and move into REPS. So great was the uptake that I again had to approach the Commission for approval of a further tranche of State aid.
Appropriately focused research is vital for the future of the agri-food sector. In a rapidly changing world, a capacity to identify market opportunities and exploit scientific advances is an essential ingredient of continued economic success. This is important at production, marketing and processing stages. In modern economies, this is a role for the agri-food sector itself. Public funding can facilitate a strategic and sustained approach to research and encourage individual research projects with medium-term benefits. For this reason, the Estimate includes funding into research by Teagasc and other institutions.
The Government's commitment to Teagasc is reflected in the fact that funding for that organisation has been increased by 18% to €122 million in the current year. This is provided under subheads B3, B4 and M4 of the Estimates. This is the main source of funding for Teagasc's research, advisory and training activities. The 2002 Estimates plan for the spending of €56 million on a broad range of research covering food processing, dairying, beef, sheep, arable crops, horticulture, environmental protection, economics and rural development. In 2000, I announced a €32 million multi-annual investment fund to assist Teagasc in the re-orientation of its research and development programme in certain strategic areas. The aim is to enable the establishment of world-class research centres in agri-food biotechnology at main Teagasc research centres. A programme of investment and rationalisation is also under way in the agricultural, horticultural and education sectors. As announced in the budget, this year's capital allocation for upgrading the agricultural and horticultural colleges has been increased to €6.34 million.
At a previous hearing of the committee, Deputies were concerned that agriculture might not attract entrants of the calibre required. I am glad to report that, in line with the report of the Task Force on Agricultural Education and Training, July 2000, agricultural education has now been brought into the mainstream education system, with the option for participants to progress to diploma and degree level. I recently announced the integration of the Farm Apprenticeship Board into Teagasc, as recommended by the task force. The ongoing investment programme in the colleges and the mainstreaming initiatives will transform the delivery of agricultural education in this country. Already, the decline in enrolments has been halted and there was a marginal increase in intake to 900 students in the current academic year.
I am providing €8 million under subhead M7 for institutional research and development in the food sector. This will allow other bodies to compete for funding of research in this vital area. Research and testing services carried out by and for the Department are funded under subhead B1, for which I have substantially increased funding from €5.6 million in 2001 to €7 million in 2002. Under a new subhead, subhead B5, I have provided €318,000 for initial Exchequer support of the setting up of the Dairy Research Trust by the dairy sector.
The Estimates provide €12.7 million under subhead M9 for CLÁR, the programme to assist areas with the greatest population decline since the foundation of the State. This programme has been put together with impressive speed. Needs have been clearly identified and funding targeted to ensure results. In regard to regions of need, development aid is provided under subheads F1 and F2 for the Western Development Commission and investment fund and, of course, the National Development Plan, 2000-2006, has allocated funding for important programmes on a regional basis.
I am pleased to provide €1.59 million under subhead H for the Racing Academy and Centre for Education. This complements other Exchequer funding for the sporting sectors generally, which brings benefits to the economy and great pleasure to many of us.
The budget for running the Department is €238 million and is provided for under the A subheads. This funding covers the cost of managing the measures and services provided in the Estimates, and administration of non-voted FEOGA expenditure on direct aids to producers and export and processing aids to industry. Subheads A5 and A7, together amounting to €23 million, are essentially geared to supporting the Department's IT strategy, which is a key component of the modernisation programme for the Department. Investment in the latest technology will greatly assist the Department in achieving the goals set out in the statement of strategy and in providing a top class service to beneficiaries of aid and to the agriculture, food and rural development sectors. I commend the Revised Estimates for 2002 to the committee.
If I sound a bit rough it reflects not just the fact I have a touch of laryngitis but also my state of mind at some of the things that are not contained in this Estimate. It is probably not politically correct to say it, but I find the change we have made in this House for dealing with Estimates, taking them into a committee like this where we cannot vote to reject the Estimate, to be a step backwards in terms of parliamentary procedure.
I thank the Minister for the briefing material he has produced and congratulate him on having dealt with such a large and important Estimate with such brevity. The Minister failed to mention a lot of the concerns this committee has expressed in recent times. I found it interesting, reading the summary of the Estimate, to find a reduction of 12% this year in the provision under subhead C5 for cattle registration and tagging. There may well be a good reason for that, but I would like to hear the Minister give us his views on how the sheep tagging process has gone up to now. As far as I can determine, and I think this is the view of the majority of sheep producers, the scheme in operation is an unmitigated disaster. When it was introduced a number of us expressed surprise to put it very mildly. We were extremely taken aback by a provision in that scheme under which the animals not only have to have a tag from the time of birth, but there are circumstances in which producers can be asked, and are indeed asked, to remove one tag and replace it with another. That never seemed to be a sensible way of going about it and it is a view shared by many. It has turned out to be a very bad provision in practice, damaging to the welfare of the animals and damaging to the mental welfare of producers. As I said at a previous meeting of the committee that the Minister attended, the whole sheep tagging scheme is now in need of a major overhaul. We have had a full year of operation of the scheme and have seen many of the great difficulties with it, and it is about time we had a change.
There is a vote in the House and we will suspend until it is concluded.
Sitting suspended at 4.25 p.m. and resumed at 4.45 p.m.
There is a great deal more to say about sheep tagging but I will conclude on it for the moment.
There are a number of issues to which the Minister, not surprisingly, did not refer in his contribution but he might indicate in his reply what he knows, if anything, about what is going on in Bord na gCon. There is an unhappy situation in relation to greyhound racing currently and a number of issues need to be addressed. Has the Minister any insight into what is going on in that respect?
The Minister will not be surprised that I am pleased he is able to provide €1.59 million for the Racing Academy Centre of Education. I would be pleased about that even if it were not located in Kildare town because it is a worthwhile operation. By contrast, I am very unhappy with the situation of young farmers. The Minister made the point that there have been a number of improvements in agricultural education, and I am delighted to know that. Those colleges that remain in business have shown a good deal of commitment and creativity in the way they have gone about their business and I have no difficulty in saying that the Minister and the Department have been supportive of what they have done. They have taken a number of steps in recent years which will be very valuable in the context of agricultural education in the future. Once they have been educated, however, young people who want to go into farming face a number of difficulties. I note that the provision in subhead J5 this year is one third down on last year's provision. I refer to the scheme of installation aid to young farmers. In view of everything the Minister, Macra na Feirme and other groups said about young farmers and what we know about the situation of farm families, does he believe it is now time to bring into operation the second part of the scheme of grants for young farmers which has never been applied in this country, that is, a system of reduced interest loans for further development once they have been established? It is a great pity that part of the scheme has not been brought into operation here. The numbers of people now applying to get involved in that scheme are reducing and it is time we re-examined it and made some improvements.
The counterpart of that is the early farm retirement scheme which figures in subhead L5. There is a 6% provision for this year, which means it is staying as it was. I want to make two principal points about that. First, the scheme is in dire need of recasting to make the conditions of entry clearer, simpler and easier to comply with. The Minister probably knows, as does every Member of the House, that people apply for the scheme and at first sight appear to be eligible, but when they go through the mass of bureaucracy that goes with it they find there is a regulation or a detail that rules them out, which is entirely unfair and is against the philosophy of the scheme. Second, I invite the Minister to look again at the amounts payable under the scheme. He probably will not have time to do that between now and the election but I hope it will be done after the election and, to the extent that it is in my power to do so, I undertake that it will be done. As the Minister knows, there is a strong belief that there should be some form of indexation in the scheme. The Commission has always taken the view that because the pension payable under the scheme at the full rate is larger than any of the corresponding national pension schemes, there is no reason to increase it. That is a bureaucratic and non-developmental way of looking at the scheme. It would be reasonable to increase the amounts payable under the scheme and there is no reason in principle why we should not provide for an element of indexation.
I have a number of concerns about on-farm investment. I note the provision under subhead M1 for this year is 76% down on the provision for last year and I know that some of the activity under that provision comes under the national development plan and other schemes. Particularly in view of the threatened legislation to implement the nitrates directive, the provisions for assistance for on-farm investment are pitifully inadequate. If we are serious about helping farmers to deal with environmental protection, which they want to, our provisions for assistance for on-farm investment will have to be substantially strengthened. It would be a serious mistake if we were to have more stringent regulations at local authority level and national level as a result of the nitrates directive if there was not a corresponding improvement in the provision of assistance for on-farm investment. The Minister knows as well as I do that there is not the kind of leeway in farm income to support the levels of investment ideally required to meet the demands of existing environmental legislation or the more stringent demands of legislation apparently being contemplated. I thank the Minister for his Department's agreement to participate in a forum I am organising next Monday on nitrate vulnerable zones. I think it will prove as valuable as the one we had last year on BSE.
The Minister has not touched on some other issues. The committee had a number of discussions in the recent past - a number took place when we did not have the great benefit of the Minister's presence - on proposals being contemplated to make all medications for animals that enter the food chain available on a prescription only basis. The Minister probably knows the burden of my thoughts on that matter and I would like to hear his response. Members of this committee, and I in a number of other fora, have carefully examined this issue. We discussed it with the Irish Medicines Board and representatives of the Minister's Department. I am sure Deputy Penrose would agree with me. We have asked if there is evidence that the system currently in place, which includes regulation and supervision by the Department, gives rise to any danger to human or animal health. The reply we got from the Irish Medicines Board and from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development has not been yes or no, but it certainly has not been yes. They have been ambivalent on the issue. I think the majority of the members of this committee would agree with me on this.
My contention is that there is absolutely no evidence that the system currently in place for the regulation of the supply, distribution and use of animal medicines provides or constitutes any threat to human or animal health. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that the system currently in place gives rise to any worrying level of residues or traces in food produced on Irish farms. That being the case I see no reason we should interfere with the system in place, which has been tried and tested and suits all the operators, including farmers. I think this is the view of the majority of members of the committee across all parties. I would like the Minister to say, if possible, that he accepts that position and that it will be the basis of his approach, to the extent he will have any further involvement in it, to proposals coming from the Commission. I can fairly say that this committee sees no justification or evidence to back up what is being proposed in that there is no danger to animal or human health. Does the Minister agree with that? I hope he does and that it will be his approach and that of his Department to any further discussions on this issue.
The Minister talked about one of the principal events of the last year, the food and mouth disease problem. I am on record as having recorded how much we owe the people who worked so hard to make sure that disease did not spread here. I will not repeat what I said at length but simply say that we owe all those people a great debt of gratitude. A great many of them worked above and beyond the call of duty. The Minister said as a consequence of the BSE crisis in autumn 2000, third country markets closed to EU beef and EU consumption dropped significantly. An announcement was made on 7 October that the Egyptian market was open again. I remember the day extremely well. I heard the news in County Cork. I was not in Cork South-West but in Cork East at the time.
The following day I was in the mart in Killmallock and people were already taking a more sanguine view of things and beginning to pay more for store cattle. Quite a number of the people who paid more for store cattle in October are now regretting they did so. It was even more interesting than that. I read in the Irish Farmers' Journal the following week - I can remember the words written by its distinguished editor almost exactly - that it was expected that substantial quantities of beef would go to Egypt before the end of November. Unless things have changed enormously in the last day or two, nothing has happened since then. Not one single kilo of Irish beef has gone to Egypt. There has been no move in neighbouring markets to that country. It has meant not a tráithnín for Irish beef producers.
I suspect that a big part of the reason for it is that, as the Minister informed us with his usual smile, on this occasion as on previous occasions the market was available for animals up to 24 months, which accounts for 13% of our production for which we already have a ready market in the UK. If that will mean anything to us, the Minister will have to go back and renegotiate that deal and persuade the Egyptians and their neighbours in Saudi Arabia that they should eat beef aged up to 30 months - as we do ourselves - which is perfectly wholesome. Irrespective of whether they want it killed here or to kill it themselves, they will get a good product if they buy Irish beef aged up to 30 months. Unless the Minister does that, the much heralded and much vaunted opening of that market will mean damn all to Irish beef producers. It has meant damn all to them up to now and it has not made a difference of any kind in the market for Irish beef. The Minister knows as well as I do that if that market really was open and available to us now, it would take many farm families out of the economic difficulties they face.
Another issue I wish to raise with the Minister relates to the Land Commission. There is a proposal, which merits serious consideration, that we should look again at the level of annuities payable by people to the Land Commission. In the accounting of appropriations-in-aid there is provision for the amount of annuities received by the Land Commission. The amount is rather small at €3,047,000. That is from a relatively small number of people but for many of them it represents a sizeable burden.
The Minister will tell me that there was a scheme some years ago under which the annuities were reduced. Indeed, that was not the first scheme for reducing the annuities. This is a provision which totals €3 million, an amount that is neither here nor there in the overall accounting of the expenditure and income of the Department. For the small number of people involved it represents a substantial burden. I invite the Minister to consider writing off the remainder of the annuities due. If he needs any encouragement, and the Minister will not often hear me say complimentary things about his party, one of the first things Fianna Fáil dealt with when it came to power in the early years of the State was the need to take action in relation to land annuities. As this is probably the last few weeks of the Minister's reign as a member of the Government, he might like to complete something that his predecessors in the party began nearly 70 years ago. I ask him to consider doing this.
Finally, I did not intend to raise this matter today but the Minister provoked me with his concluding comments about the Department's IT strategy. I wish the Minister and Department well in their IT strategy but can he explain why a number of farmers in various parts of the country are still waiting for premium payments and are being told that the reason the premia have not been paid is a computer breakdown in a section of the Department? Even though the farmers are entitled to the premia, they cannot be paid because staff cannot enter the payments into the computer. For some reason the Department suggests that if the farmers cannot be paid by computer, they will not be paid at all.
The Department is letting the individuals concerned wait for their money until the computer is sorted out. That has been going on for two months, if not longer. Why can a manually accounted payment not be made and entered into the computer when the Department finally gets it fixed? It is utterly unreasonable that people who have an entitlement must wait until the Department gets its computer fixed. Will the Minister look after this and have the payment made under the old steam method? People with entitlements should not have to wait for payments because the Department cannot get its computer fixed. My colleagues will be anxious to say more about western development and some of the CLÁR programmes.
I welcome the Minister and his officials and thank them for their comprehensive brief. Deputy Dukes gave an extensive review of the main issues. I concur with his last point in relation to the failure to send payments to farmers, many of whom are needy. A number of them are located in the midlands, particularly in my county. Little fidgety problems are always visited on the farmer. If a payment can be sorted out down to a single animal, it means about 95% of things are in order. Why not get the payments out?
A farmer who farms 40 acres asked me yesterday why the Department always pays only 60% of the entitlement when the farmer could do with 100% to buy manure and other requirements. He described it as a mean spirited and niggardly way of doing things. The head is not worth the wash at the end of the day, he said, when one has to wait for the rest of the money. This man has only ten or 12 animals. The Minister talks about the billion pound budget that is handled through this system but this is the reason I have always advocated an independent system of administering the payments.
That brings me to the bureaucracy involved in farming. Recently, Deputy Dukes, myself and others had an opportunity to debate this point. The Minister is a practical person who listens to what we say. I wish some of his officials would listen as well. We are strangling farming. Yesterday I met about 25 small farmers. One of them told me he is getting out of farming. I pointed out that his father and grandfather had been involved in farming but he said: "They are getting me out of it with paper work; only this morning a sheaf of stuff arrived". None of these farmers is Einstein. I am a barrister and I have found ambiguity in some of the forms. If they came before a court of law, they could be construed for the body in the strongest position, the Department. However, the officials of the Department say: "Oh no, I think it would not be right; we have to look at it again". They speak this nonsense. It is either right or wrong.
I get angry because I see the flight from the land. I live in a dry stock area and I see the farmers moving out. I see the push to get them into part-time farming and I do not like it. Some of the farming organisations are party to it. It was music to my ears to hear the western report the other evening as I travelled home. It said exactly what I have been saying for the last four years. Why push everybody into this? The bureaucracy is strangling the area. Why not have a simple form of two pages that is universally applicable for all the schemes? It should be clear, easy to read and customer friendly. Why not have a departmental unit in every county to pre-screen the forms? If the Department wants Teagasc to fill in the forms for the farmers, it should tell Teagasc to do so.
I am worried about the small farmer with less than 100 acres. There are farmers in Westmeath who do not get a penny from the Department. They fill in no forms and take no money because dealing with the forms would drive them insane. Think of an elderly woman of 84 years of age receiving those forms. I cannot understand some of them. I might have limited intelligence and I will admit to that but how does the Department expect an 84 year old person to make head or tail of the forms? When the forms are sent in, it is easy to press a button on the computer and reject them. The Minister must put departmental units in each county to look at the forms and help people. Let the first objective be facilitation, not finding an excuse to reject. Let them look at the forms and let the first port of call be facilitation, not finding an excuse to reject. We must do something to put those units in place to help people. I know the Minister said it only affects 4% or 5% of people, but they are already at the bottom of the scale. I speak for those people. That is why I want an autonomous agency, which would be answerable and accountable to the Minister of the day and to an Oireachtas committee, to administer FEOGA payments.
I wonder if the principle of proportionality, which is a fundamental part of European law, applies to penalties. I know what the Minister will say. He will tell me about the regulations which are directly applicable. I almost lost my head trying to learn that 13 or 15 years ago. If they were directly applicable, the State would have been the defendant in a number of cases. I remember one directive which the State was dilatory in implementing. It should have been sued years ago. We should try to help small farmers.
If an error is brought to the attention of the Department, such as something wrong with a card for a male or a female animal which was used in the past, it is believed that someone is trying to be smart. I visited many of my constituents yesterday - I have to visit them because there are two candidates trying to take my seat and I must keep an eye on them - who come from simple backgrounds, as I do. Many of them are 60 years of age and more and they are the salt of the earth. They took cards given by the Department. I know the Minister will say the animals must be caught and their tags examined but that is difficult for a person who is a widow, for example. Such people rely on the information furnished by the Department and often resubmit it. If the card for a female animal is issued in error and the error is replicated, the widow will be told there is something wrong with the claim. It will also probably be said to her that she should have hired two men for the day to look at her cattle. Some people believe they would be better off without the small subsidy.
The Minister has been in office for almost the past ten years. What happened to the agriculture appeals Act? Did someone throw it in the bin after it had been passed? Does the Department not want to lose control? Were the chairpersons who were supposed to hear those independent appeals appointed? If they were appointed, it was done without my knowledge. I did not receive any information about it and the Minister is normally good about giving information. The Minister filled my office with information about BSE and regulations. However, I did not receive any information about the independent appeals. I challenge this head on. I look forward to the day when I get client who is right and I will take this issue all the way with the Department. That is not a threat, but a promise. I know I will have the right to an independent appeal and I will be able to take it further. I would have a strong case, given the principle of proportionality. The maximum penalty should be applied if someone deliberately sets out to defraud the State. I am not interested in those people. If they do that, the full rigours of the criminal law should be applied to them.
I also speak for many young people. Deputy Dukes referred to installation aid. The rate of technical and market change is increasing. There are high establishment costs and low levels of aid in farming. How many farmers applied for installation aid over the two year period? They are put through more hoops to get it than athletes go through in a marathon. I know a young person who is trying to get some land. He qualified under the old scheme, but that is not the case now. The Department should try to smooth the path for young people who want to go into farming. The Minister knows there are other attractive options for young people in industrial, skilled, semi-skilled and professional jobs which offer better incomes and standards of living. They are not jobs for 24 hours a day and seven days a week. If they are, the people are well paid. There are severe impediments and obstacles for young farmers, such as the non-availability of quotas and poor access to land. That is why installation aid is important. The money may not be great and we could argue for the same pay as an average IDA Ireland job at £15,000, but I congratulate the Minister for getting it up and running. We accept the Minister had to fight a battle for State aid. I know we have a low interest environment, but if low interest loans for farm development are available in France and EU approval is already in place, we should use that to encourage young people into farming.
Have we looked at partnerships? I know there is a dairy partnership pilot scheme from the information the Minister sent to me. Why is it not implemented across the farming sectors? Why is it not in the beef and tillage areas? It permits flexibility, work sharing and economies of scale which would help to make life more profitable. We should do what we can to get young people into farming, whether it is related to quotas, access to land, low interest loans or installation aid. It would help to increase the number of farmers under 35 years of age, which now stands at less than 11%.
The Minister has tried to deal with the control of farmyard pollution and with on farm investment schemes. I know two or three directives, such as the nitrate directive and the water management directive, will be implemented in this regard. The Minister will also want to deal with stock and the number of slurry storage facilities and storage and spreading periods and good farming practices. People involved in REPS will probably operate in this area. What is the position in Northern Ireland? Are there identifiable nitrate vulnerable zones in Northern Ireland? Will we take a blanket approach, which appears to be the position, or can we examine it along the lines of other countries which have identified the areas which might be vulnerable? Those directives will impose a huge financial burden on the agricultural community. That is the reason there must be a significant increase in the level of capital funding available from the Department.
The restructuring of the milk sector is an old hobby horse of mine, but there is also a need for restructuring of the suckler cow quota scheme. If the Minister gives consideration to introducing such a scheme, obviously the same tax concessions that apply in the dairy sector will have to be made available in order to make it attractive. It would not be an easy job for the Department to deal with the various categories involved. I accept it would be difficult to ring-fence the scheme according to classification, including disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged areas. The next Government, whatever its composition, will have to examine this matter. The suckler cow is the genesis of that great industry and I want to make sure that ordinary beef farmers are taken care of.
The other evening I was listening to that great programme by Damien O'Reilly, although I could not give it my full attention because I was rushing somewhere. I will have to obtain a tape of it. The programme concerned direct payments of approximately €1.2 billion. We have failed to maintain the maximum possible number of farmers in rural Ireland and, in particular, the family farm unit. One can point to technological changes, economies of scale and the concentration of population in urban areas as having contributed to rural decline. However, direct payments are linked to eligible animals and land, and sometimes they encourage volume rather than quality.
The Minister is doing his best to penetrate high quality EU markets which have been targeted by An Bord Bia, but it all comes down to breeding and quality. We should not be afraid to say so. We must be consumer and market-led, as opposed to being production driven. That means that we should examine the possibility of linking direct payments to the resources used in farming activities. This would ensure that quality products are produced. Perhaps direct payments should be made to the farmer per se, to get rid of all this inhibiting paper-work. We know what farmers have and we even know what they eat for breakfast, but could we examine the possibility of making even part of the direct payments payable directly to farmers? That would have the advantage of transferring that value directly into income for farmers, rather than an asset. Very often, the direct payment is fed into the price of land or animals that are purchased.
Some of the farming organisations might kick that idea to touch. They would have no time for it, but so be it. In the past, they did not have time for many other things but some of them have since moved with the times. Recently, I heard about the study in the Western People - I am sure Deputy Collins knows more about it than I do - which involved bishops too. They reached the conclusion that I had reached eight years ago in 1994. I argued at the time that we should consider the introduction of other direct payment options for maintaining a rural household. If one goes back to the Mansholt plan in 1974, that is what the European Community was about. We should reward farmers and potential farmers by encouraging them to reside in rural areas.
I want to conclude by mentioning the reclassification of certain products as prescription-only medicines. We are indebted to Fintan Conway, John Stack and Declan O'Brien for having given us comprehensive submissions in this area. In advance of that, however, we made the case strongly that if there is a worry about human health, the Minister has our support as he had in relation to foot and mouth disease. We still have to see evidence of the benefits that would accrue from using such products. We must ensure that the available data supports the case that is being made. From what I have heard to date, however, I am not convinced that is the way to proceed. All we will end up with is uniformity, but is it of uniform application across the European Union? As things stand, do we not have a strict definition of prescription only medicine in relation to veterinary examinations and diagnoses before any medicine is prescribed? A more liberal approach is taken in every EU member state.
There are huge penalties for dairy farmers who ignore those regulations which are already very strict. If they do ignore them they could lose 5,000 gallons of milk and be penalised for four days. Professional stockmen are not going to do that. The empirical evidence is that they have ensured that the treatment is administered in an appropriate fashion. We should think long and hard before we go down this route as much more evidence is required before we embark upon it. The Minister should hold his fire until this matter has been examined more thoroughly.
Deputies Brady, Connaughton, Crawford and Sheehan are offering. I do not want to restrict Deputies, but we told the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources that we would take that Estimate at around 6 p.m., so brevity is called for. Perhaps Deputy Penrose was doing too much canvassing in recent days because he had too many queries.
The Chairman has heard me making those points for the past five years.
The last two speakers have covered almost every issue. Subhead 3 provides for compensation for depopulation of herds following testing of animals for cases of BSE. Is there a change in the policy of slaughtering all animals when a BSE case is detected in a herd? There have been a couple of BSE cases in my area in recent times and I have been told that four or five weeks later the entire herd would not have been depopulated. I would like to know if there has been a change in that area?
Subhead 3 also covers destruction of meat and bonemeal. At present, there are 200,000 tonnes of meat and bonemeal in secure stores across the country. The Minister hopes that 100,000 tonnes of it will be destroyed on the Continent in the coming year. Is the Minister running out of space for storing such material? I understand the Department is finding it difficult to find suitable storage areas for meat and bonemeal.
The Minister also mentioned the destruction scheme and its successor, the special purchase scheme. The purchase for destruction scheme removed 278,000 animals from the market in the period January to June 2001. I compliment the Minister on securing accommodation for that scheme which kept the flow of cattle going to the market at the time. The continuation of the destruction scheme for cows has been more than welcome and I compliment the Minister on that because it got a lot of those animals out of the marketplace and it has helped to stabilise prices.
Deputy Penrose mentioned that people make mistakes. I do not wish to criticise Department officials or anybody else because they all have a job to do but it is very annoying that when the Department makes a mistakes, whether in the area office or elsewhere, there seems to be no problem but when some farmer makes a mistake, they are crucified. This is very unfair. The biggest problem is with a lot of the old bachelor farmers. It is very difficult for them. A lot of cases would be resolved if common sense prevailed among some officials. Some officials use common sense but, unfortunately, some do not. Some officials have reputations and, indeed, for one official in the Department office in my county, it always seems to be the "bloody farmer". He seems to have no time for farmers. Even people working under him cannot understand the mentality of this man. If a little mistake is made, one's name is scratched off, which is very unfair. He does not allow officials working under him to use common sense. It should be drummed into them that common sense should prevail, particularly where simple mistakes are made.
We talk about trying to keep young people in rural areas. People and Deputies in other counties know how we have suffered down through the years with the planning laws. This is another area in which people do not use much common sense, particularly the new breed of planners in every county. Engineers who were involved in planning used common sense, but this has all changed and we have a new breed of planner who does not use common sense. In addition we have new planning authorities such as Dúchas and An Taisce which have no respect whatsoever for rural Ireland and wish to kill it. I am sure we have all had problems. If something is not done about Dúchas and An Taisce, there will be nobody living in rural areas. Their policy is to depopulate rural areas and move people to the towns and cities. I hope some Government and Minister will tackle these people head on because they have no respect for rural Ireland. I know it is not this Minister's problem but I am sure he would like to see more young people engaged in agriculture, living in rural areas and keeping them and agriculture alive. If they are not allowed to live in rural areas, agriculture will die.
Like the other speakers, I would like the Minister to make a statement on the up-to-date position in respect of the prescription only medicine regulations which were supposed to be implemented. As other speakers said, if one allows antibiotics into one's milk, one knows the consequences. We all know the consequences of sending an animal with antibiotics to the factory. This is another situation in which common sense should prevail. It will be a sad and crazy situation if a farmer has to call out a vet on a Saturday or Sunday to get a prescription.
If one could find a vet.
There is no doubt about that. I will not delay the meeting further other than to say that common sense should prevail in cases where people make simple mistakes.
There is a number of points to which I wish to refer. I would like to talk about the Egyptian trade. I am beginning to believe that the Egyptian market will not open. With all due respect to the Minister, he announced four times in five years that it will open, but it has still not opened. A lot of people will be in a particularly difficult position if that trade, and other markets, do not open in the next eight or nine months. If the Minister gets as far as 9 May, maybe that will be another story. Whether the Minister is back, the farming community must make a living.
That might not be the date.
They are talking about 16 May.
It might be seven days too late for the Minister but that is another story. One way or the other, this is a terribly important topic. A commitment was given, and I have no doubt knowing the Minister that it was given in good faith, but it was given in good faith on the three previous occasions and the market still did not open. There was euphoria among the farming community last November when this was announced. I bought it the last time and believed what the Minister said was right and that the market would open. A large number of people bought costly weanling cattle. Unless something is done to redress what is happening at the meat factories, there will be a lot of very irritated farmers. I am not talking about the widow with ten or 12 cattle but about the best commercial farmers in the country. They are running into a huge storm. I know it might not be an important subject at the moment and that the Minister will say store cattle were never as dear. They are dear and there is a good trade in them but there will be problems not too far down the road.
The factories are beginning to do what they are always good at doing. If they get an opportunity collectively, they will depress prices. There is only one way to beat them and that is by having shipments of cattle, dead or alive, so there will be competition, but that is not happening. I am issuing a word of warning despite all the congratulations today. The Minister did a fine job on foot and mouth and everybody accepts that. The fact we kept foot and mouth disease out, which was extremely important to everybody concerned, was in itself one factor but what happens in the farmer's pocket in the next 12 months is another one and the Minister knows that as well as I do.
As regards the reopening of that market, I was told the veterinary certificate and everything else was right. If that is the case, why are the cattle not being exported? Why is it not worth the exporters while? They are the people who count. If it is no good to them, then the market is not there. It is as simple as that.
A number of farmers, including myself, got details of the new national beef assurance scheme in the post. It is a bit like what Deputy Penrose was saying in that one would certainly need a day to go through it all. We have discussed it here ad nauseam over the last 12 months and we know what is involved. It is a hugely complicated, catch all scheme. Every standard we hope to aspire to in farming is included in that document. However, I would like to sound a word of warning to every one of our 100,000 beef farmers who are expected to sign their names to it. I hope they all understand the ramifications of what they are doing.
I see nothing wrong with trying to ensure that we have a higher standard in crop and animal husbandry and that products will find a ready market. Will the Minister give the farming community a categorical assurance that he will let it know who will conduct the inspection for the national beef assurance scheme and who will pay for it? This issue was the cause of debate in the Dáil a couple of years ago when an undertaking was given by one of the junior Ministers that the Department would pay for it. There has been much side-stepping on this since then and the Minister should clarify the position.
With regard to cross compliance, a penalty applied under the cow suckler scheme under certain circumstances will be applied across the board, including to applicants for the REP scheme, the young farmer installation aid and area aid. This is not well known. As I understand it, certain penalties will apply at certain levels across the board. Will the Minister explain what is involved because it is hugely important? If the penalties are to be applied across the board they will amount to a punitive punishment for many farmers.
I see nothing wrong with the CLÁR programme for the Western Development Commission, under the auspices of the Minister of State, Deputy Ó Cuív. It deals with the poorest of the poor areas in the country. The Minister's Department is responsible for the commission. It was to have been the great white hope for the west when it was initiated in the Department of the Taoiseach under the then Taoiseach, Deputy John Bruton. I mean no disrespect to the Department or any other lead Department when I say it was a fundamental mistake to move it from the Department of the Taoiseach. It lost credibility.
The Minister runs a fine big Department well. However, it is concerned with agriculture and ancillary activities. The Western Development Commission is concerned with more, including industry, infrastructure and employment. I take the view - it is shared by the commission - that since it was moved to the Department, it does not have the same clout when it deals with other Departments. Given the investment of £25 million in the commission and the activities in which it was to be involved, we considered that it would succeed in narrowing the income gap between those on the west and east coasts. However, the figures show the gap continues to be large and there is also a huge infrastructure gap. If three big industrialists wanted to locate in the west the ESB would be unable to supply them with power.
I hope the commission's CLÁR programme, which will provide funding of £10 million per year over two years, will help with the provision of small sewerage schemes and assist towns that are designated as disadvantaged. However, if the Government thinks this will redress the huge economic imbalance between the west, the east and the south it is mistaken. It will be a huge issue in the forthcoming general election.
The Minister is aware of our views on the issue of prescription only medicine. It was dealt with at length by the committee a few weeks ago. We are becoming concerned that the Department is starting to back pedal on the matter. Perhaps the Irish Medicines Board is making an input. It would be a fundamental mistake if a cow that contracts mastitis on a Saturday or Sunday cannot be treated by the farmer because he cannot get a veterinary practitioner. Grave strain and pain will be caused to the animal. I accept that those pursuing this issue want to ensure that such pain would not be caused, but the reverse will happen. I hope the Department is resolved on this matter as it was on the last occasion the Minister addressed it.
I was heartened following the meeting the committee had with the Irish Medicines Board. While the view presented was problematic the ensuing discussion was constructive. It was clear that the board was not imposing some of the issues suggested to the committee by the Department. I urge the Minister not to allow the issue become bogged down to the point where it would be impossible to supervise. Requiring every medicine to be disposed by prescription will not work. It will only make the medicine more expensive to the farmer and it will be distributed through the veterinary office on the advice and care of one of the office's personnel without proper scrutiny. The present system, where co-operatives and others are licensed to sell the product and to advise on it, is a better way to proceed.
I have complete confidence in the veterinary surgeons and have often said that if many doctors gave the same service we would not have the current problems with doctors on call. If requested, a veterinary surgeon will appear at any time of the night or day. When the current system is acknowledged to be working well it would be wrong to abandon it in favour of the prescription route.
As a dairy farmer, I would be heavily fined if my milk was found to have any antibiotics. Were it to happen I could not afford to keep on those who work for me. The same applies to other products. This system has worked extremely well. We should not allow it to cost more and to become unworkable, making it more difficult to maintain a profitable business.
Has there been a re-think on matters with regard to BSE? This issue was raised by me previously and by my colleague from Meath. The matter should be looked at again.
The number of herds being taken out at present is increasing quite dramatically. It is hard to advise farmers that their good young stock, which could not have been fed meat and bonemeal or any other such product, must be taken out and perhaps be replaced with cattle from other countries where we do not know how they have been fed over the past five or seven years. I urge that there should be some review of that.
The figures in the estimate are quite frightening. The Minister's overall budget has not increased that much. However, because much of the budget is taken up in this area of BSE, meat and bonemeal, etc., the Minister needs to make sure that what the Department does is sensible and practical and will solve the problem in the end of the day. It is to this end that on a previous occasion I questioned the means whereby the Department tenders for the storage of meat and bonemeal. The Department has stated clearly how it tenders for the disposal of the meat and bonemeal to other countries to incinerate, etc., but I am not satisfied that there is openness and transparency in the storage of the meat and bonemeal. I know a few people who showed an interest in storing it who certainly did not get too much of a hearing and we have been told today that it is a serious problem.
I do not want to go into the issue regarding Egypt and Libya and all the other issues which will arise at the hustings because we have the days and dates for all the times the Minister opened those markets and details of how many of them he opened.
There was one scheme which was helpful as far as Friesian calves are concerned, that was, the destruction scheme or whatever the Minister likes to call it - some call it the herd scheme. Has the Minister looked at that as a means of curtailing stock numbers at present? I am told that as the quota year comes to end, it is becoming much more difficult to dispose of Holstein type Friesian calves. Is there any effort being made to find live export markets for them or other means of taking them out of the system because that could have a major impact in the future?
In light of the time constraints, Chairman, I will touch on two other issues only, the first of which is the problem with the storage of slurry. I realise that the Minister has increased the availability of funds for that purpose this year but does he honestly believe there are sufficient funds in place to deal with the crisis which will ensue if the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, gets ahead with the push he is making towards forcing all farmers to retain their slurry for a minimum of six months? Some £104 million was made available in that area in 1997. Some £12 million was made available last year. I realise the Minister had to spend a great deal of money on controlling BSE and all other issues, but the amount of money spent over the past four years on the control of farm yard pollution is minimal in comparison to what had to be spent on it in previous years. There is a need for an enormous injection of funds in this area if farmers are to be retained on the land under the regulations that the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, seemingly with the agreement of the Minister, Deputy Walsh, would seek to impose. This is a serious issue. There is certainly a need for much less red tape. Many farmers are saying they can no longer continue due to the new regulations for the REPS scheme, for farm buildings or for dairy hygiene, etc.
This brings me to my last point. The Minister promised that if we supported him in passing the laws to implement an independent appeals body, he would get it up and running quickly. At this stage it is obvious that if it is done before this Government falls, it will be done as a going away gift to somebody just to have him or her in the chair
and to create a few other posts for the future. This is a serious issue.
Some months ago I became involved in a case on behalf of a farmer. He was being docked two years' payments because of a minor technical problem. We got that reduced to a one-year penalty. He had been working under severe pressure and used the information he had in front of him on his desk, in the way Deputy Penrose outlined earlier. He did not have the time to bring in every animal, and he has admitted freely to that mistake.
It is no coincidence that the same farmer sent in an application for ten animals, all in chronological order, which he himself tagged, all of which were perfect and that some person taking that down off the form on to a computer made a mistake. The farmer got a letter stating that he had applied for a wrong animal. That is accepted as a genuine mistake and I believe it was a genuine mistake - some girl just pressed a "9" instead of a "7" or a "7" instead of a "9". That is not a criminal issue. She should not lose a cent. I say it was a girl because it was a girl who signed the letter stating it was she who did it. She thought she had found a wrong animal. How can the Minister justify that a farmer should have £7,000 taken from him when he admits that he made a genuine mistake, and that somebody in the Minister's Department in excellent conditions can make a similar mistake and it is not anissue?
A degree of common sense and reason must prevail. Otherwise all, not just four, of the agricultural colleges will close in the next four years. Farmers will not put up with this. We are not criminals. The Minister got my party, as the main Opposition party, to agree on classification of rogue dealers and on what to do about them. Now all dealers seem to be viewed in the same way because they are all getting the same treatment.
We cannot agree that all farmers are rogue farmers. The Minister has a sufficient budget, which we should go through line by line to see how we could at least allow a service to be given at every county level or regional level in order that farmers would not find themselves in the position of having to telephone the Bandon office with a correction, to be told that it is not the remit of the Bandon office but of the Castlebar office, then that it is not the remit of the Castlebar office but of the Portlaoise office and then that it is not the remit of the Portlaoise office but of the area aid section in Ballsbridge.
A long time ago I asked was it possible with the new computerised system, which we and the Minister saw working in Clontibret, that any farmer could go in, see the maps and get them rectified at first hand. Why can that not be done at every level? A farmer with whom I am familiar who submitted correct information about his own area has, in the latter part of March, not received two payments for his cattle because a neighbour has made an application in respect of two hectares of the land. He has written letters and contacted the Department by telephone but he has still not been paid. Is that justice? I do not believe so. In my opinion, the Department has sufficient funds available to ensure that farmers should be able to resolve matters of this nature with officials at local level. The Department's budget should be used to make this possible.
We have left the good wine until last. I call Deputy Sheehan.
I do not know whether it is by coincidence that I am being allowed to sum up or perhaps it is because I represent the same constituency as the Minister.
It is a special favour.
I congratulate him on the voluminous documentation he has supplied to the Select Committee on Agriculture, Food and Marine in the form of the 2002 Estimates for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development.
The Vote we are considering contains 77 subheads and I am terribly disappointed that the Minister failed to make an allocation of £10 million for the milk policy rights group which has put forward such a good case over the past five years. Apparently, its calls have fallen on deaf ears. An allocation of £10 million would have compensated the unfortunate 1,100 farmers affected by difficulties which gave rise to the group's establishment. Perhaps it is not too late to ask the Minister, before the general election, to make available the allocation to which I refer in order to compensate these poor people in some way. He would then retain their goodwill when he goes forward for election in the forthcoming contest. I do not believe it is asking too much to have such an allocation made available.
I join other Members in stating that the Department's reliance on red tape and bureaucracy is shocking, particularly as it relates to farmers. I have made repeated representations to the Department's offices in Portlaoise, Castlebar, Cork and Darrara. It was not acceptable that when I rang the newly opened office of the Department in Darrara, which is located in the constituency the Minister and I represent, at 3.40 p.m., I was greeted with a recorded message which informed me that there was nobody available to answer my query.
Did the Deputy phone on a Friday?
That is shocking. I ask the Minister to ensure this recording is removed and that the employees of the office in Darrara, who are extremely courteous, give satisfaction to elected representatives who are earnestly trying to help poor misfortunate farmers throughout the country.
I am familiar with cases where petty errors cause 100% penalties to be issued by different sections of the Department. I have contacted the Minister about such matters on occasion and he has done his best for me. On other occasions, however, he has failed. Most of these petty errors were made by elderly farmers who find it difficult to understand the new regulations. They can see no logic in the fact that when perhaps two, three or four of the cows included on their suckler cow application forms prove not to be in calf and when they substitute them with in-calf heifers from their own herds, they are not given the benefit of the doubt.
How is it that the Department is not held responsible when it makes mistakes? I am, for example, aware of many area aid applications that were not dealt with. I was informed by the area aid unit of the Department that it never received them. However, when receipts of postage are presented the Department accepts the applications. Where would the farmers to whom I refer be if they did not have receipts of postage? Who in the Department is responsible for the errors to which I refer? The Minister will have to clear the decks before he goes back to the hustings. I advise him to do so because there could be serious electoral repercussions if the errors to which I refer are not put to rights.
I am a firm believer that to err is human but to forgive is divine. It is not easy, however, when one is faced with a dogmatic employee of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development stating that under no circumstances can an excuse be accepted. That is extremely unfair. I have no intention of tarring all employees of the Department with one brush. Some of the staff are excellent and they are well prepared to listen to common sense. I hope the Minister will ensure that this continues to be the case for many years to come.
Every outgoing Minister should put in place a policy for his employees to the effect that the benefit of the doubt should be given to misfortunate farmers who may not have been able to read the small print contained in the regulations attaching to these schemes. It is extremely galling that replies from the Department are often received with copies of the regulations enclosed - one would want to have very good eyesight to read them - and that it is pointed out in such replies that people have made errors by not obeying the regulations. Some of these farmers are in their 60s and 70s and they cannot follow the regulations to the letter. They are not, however, intent on defrauding the Department. I congratulate the Minister on taking action in respect of those who are trying to defraud the Department in a criminal manner.
Difficulties with commonages are preventing area based payments being made in disadvantaged areas. When a farmer possesses ample land other than commonage, he should receive his area based payment in respect of the remainder of his land and his herd. He should not be penalised because of commonage problems.
I urge the Minister to look seriously at the BSE depopulation issue. Last week a herd of over 300 cattle, one of the largest herds in the constituency of Cork South-West, was diagnosed as having one animal infected with BSE. That herd owner has over 300 milk cows. I have witnessed instances where the baby calves are taken away with the cows. I was told recently that the dog will be taken with the cows in an effort to clear out the entire herd. Surely, in this modern age it is not inappropriate to ask the Minister and the Department to clear up this anomaly. In other countries the full herd is not depopulated. The animal concerned is traced. There is a traceability record for the animal and any animal concerned with the animal gone down is taken out of the herd. As Deputy Crawford said earlier, they may be replaced by cattle from outside the country for which we may have no traceability in regard to their origin. That is the situation. I ask the Minister to correct that anomaly if at all possible. It would save the Exchequer millions of euro. He could then devote some of those millions to the milk rights group to keep its members happy.
I note the Minister has estimated €1.59 million for the Racing Academy and Centre of Education. I recall the many evenings the Minister has enjoyed with the trotting association of west Cork. I know only too well how he gets around to those courses, meets the people there, shakes hands and talks nice to them. One particular individual associated with that that all-weather race track, Paddy Collins, has made repeated representations to the Minister and me for financial assistance to bring that race track up to standard. On the last occasion I saw the Minister there, he was thoroughly enjoying the evening. For how long can that man continue to run that race track without assistance of some description? Why give most of the €1.59 million to the Racing Academy and Centre of Education in Kildare when there are other worthwhile racing projects all over the country to be financed?
Young men and women from County Cork are welcome in RACE.
It is important that live exports be resumed as soon as possible. I maintain that where there is no opposition the meat factories will pay what they wish to the farmer. Recently I attended Bandon mart and, within the next month, the Minister will attend it on a canvassing expedition. I have visited Bandon mart once a month for the past five years. Farmers are dissatisfied at the lack of exports of live finished cattle to the Middle East. When they fail to get their cattle into factories they are put on a waiting list. That should not happen here. I do not know whether the cattle boat is stuck in the mud or what has happened to it, but I have been waiting for the past 11 months to see it afloat. Perhaps the Minister is waiting for a spring tide to float that cattle boat. The sooner the boat is floating for the export of finished cattle to the Middle East, the better, otherwise we will face a sad period as far as finishers are concerned.
It is important that our meat, mutton and bacon exports are up to standard. Quality, not price, should be the key to success in the meat trade. If the Minister gets the cattle boats out of the mud as soon as possible, he will get agriculture back to the prominent position it should have enjoyed in the past few years. I realise the Minister went through a difficult time with the foot and mouth disease but he was almost canonised for keeping it out of the country. In his speech in Dublin Castle, the Archbishop of Dublin, when ordained cardinal, praised the Minister for the efforts he made. I do not know whether Cardinal Connell understood that the Minister received a fair amount of help from the lady across the Border, Brid Rodgers. Between them they succeeded in working a miracle by keeping foot and mouth disease out of the country. Thank God, that was one great job done here. One must also thank every citizen for co-operating with the regulations laid down. That was an absolute success. In the dying days of this Administration, let us hope the Minister will do something for the besieged farmers.
Many of the matters at issue were raised by a number of Deputies. I thank Deputies for their contributions. My introductory comments were deliberately brief because I wished to allow Deputies an opportunity to make their points. The question of traceability and sheep tagging was raised by Deputy Dukes and others. The situation is that we had a serious problem with foot and mouth disease last year. I have said many times, both inside and outside the House, that everybody concerned, particularly in the Dáil and Seanad, did not make a political issue out of it and acted in the best interests of our primary industry and the overall economy. I appreciate that. One of the difficulties was traceability of cattle and traceability of sheep. We had no knowledge whatsoever of individual sheep, where they were coming from or where they were going. It was decided that individual identification would be necessary for disease control and marketing. Sheep tagging was introduced from 21 June 2001 to provide for full traceability for all sheep on an individual basis. Since then 11.3 million sheep tags have been ordered by farmers from 43,500 individual flock owners. The flock register is essential for traceability. I accept that it is not simple or easy and that it represents an additional chore with which people have to comply. However, in the modern system of disease control and food marketing - and I agree with Deputy Sheehan's view that quality is the benchmark - we regard individual identification as necessary.
As regards the complexities of the scheme, Teagasc has been very helpful and the Department has just completed a round of information meetings throughout the country which were well attended. We are examining the outcome of those meetings. We will see to what extent we can further simplify application forms for the schemes, including the sheep tagging scheme. We will implement the mechanism which provides traceability with the least level of hassle for farmers. I anticipate that we will have the outcome of those meetings in the next week or so and that we will put in place means of rectifying some of the problems raised.
Bord na gCon is a commercial State body which operates to its own remit under its board. There have been a number of well highlighted cases, but they are a matter for the board. I congratulate the chairman, Paschal Taggart, and the chief executive, Michael Field, for the development of the industry over the past few years. The number of people attending greyhound race meetings has increased from about 500,000 to one million. Given our population size, it is quite extraordinary that about one million people attend such race meetings. Sponsorship and turnover have also increased and the morale of the industry is in good shape. I am sure the board will resolve whatever individual difficulties exist in a structured way.
Reference was made to RACE. Many people are not suited to academia and many people are talented. I saw some of those talents at close quarters in Cheltenham last week. A good number of colleagues from all sides of the House attended the meeting, but unfortunately Arctic Copper fell at the first fence. The vast majority of jockeys are Irish-born, reared and trained. Kildare is the favoured place for training these people who come from Cork and other areas and they do a superb job. We are providing another facility which will be helpful to people in west Cork. The shortage of blacksmiths became a problem in the past few years and we are setting up a new farriery. In the old days there was a blacksmith in every village. Young Irish fellows will do very well.
A number of Deputies raised the issue of agricultural education. I am glad we were able to earmark funds for the upgrading of some colleges. Deputy Sheehan will be quite familiar with Darrara and the progress which has taken place.
The Minister laid the foundation stone not so long ago.
That was a good evening. It is a welcome development that agricultural education has been mainstreamed and colleges are linked electronically to institutes of technology and universities in Ireland and around the world. That is as it should be. Over 900 students are attending agricultural colleges this year which represents an increase on previous years.
Deputy Dukes asked what we should do as regards younger farmers once they leave the agricultural colleges. I put in place a number of encouragements for younger farmers, including the installation aid scheme. This aid has increased from £5,700 to £7,500 which is a help. The early retirement scheme also assists younger people. The top-up which is available for on-farm investment by farmers under 35 years of age also helps. Young farmers under 35 are also given priority for suckler cow and milk quotas and ewe premia. Teagasc is implementing the recommendations of the task force on the training needs of the agricultural sector.
As regards tax incentives, stamp duty has been abolished. There is also 100% stock relief available for young, trained farmers for a period of four years after transfer. The CAT threshold for inheritances has been substantially increased. One can now take over a farm worth up to £3 million without paying CAT. That was not the case in the past. Probate tax has also been abolished and income tax exemptions apply to land leased to non-connected persons by farmers aged 55. Retirement relief is also available on capital gains tax.
Last year we introduced tax relief for the purchase of milk quotas which was also of benefit to younger farmers. In every possible way we are trying to encourage younger farmers to stay on the land. However, this is difficult. When young people leave secondary school and, in particular, third level, they have options. To a great extent such people are opting for a better lifestyle. They want their weekends off and to go to various race meetings, car rallies and such like. They even go skiing which we did not do in our day, but more luck to them.
We do not yet have the five-day cow.
That is the problem. Genetically, we are falling behind. There was a general request for a recasting of some of the schemes, particularly the farm retirement scheme. Some improvements were made, but it is still very complex. EU schemes are fairly complex. A mid-term review will take place in the next few months and we will try to bring about improvements in this area. We achieved improvements in areas such as the requirement for additional land and the fact that one had to be a full-time farmer. However, the greatest improvement was with regard to indexation. We will see if we can help out in that regard.
Deputy Dukes raised the issue of annuities. I introduced a number of ameliorations to the scheme. It is a pity that people did not avail of these as they were significant and taxpayers forked up to the tune of 75% of the annuities concerned. There was a waiver in the case of a build up of annuities. There are some outstanding annuities and, in fairness to all, the hard core involved should pay whatever annuities remain. That is the only fair way in which to deal with this issue.
We have a good IT system in the Department. From time to time new programmes are provided which may cause a little difficulty. However, by and large, the progress made in this area in the past three or four years has been outstanding and is of considerable benefit to the implementation and the smooth running of schemes. Some studies have been carried out on schemes throughout the EU which have shown that Ireland has the speediest, most error free and least complicated schemes. This is an indication of how well the matter is progressing.
A number of Deputies raised the issue of the Egyptian market. The first I heard of the opening of that market for live cattle was on the day of the general election in 1997. That was five years ago. We do not want this saga to go on and on.
We will have——
There have been no live exports to Egypt since then. The Egyptian market was re-opened for beef last autumn and it was re-opened on favourable conditions to Ireland. Ireland is listed as an exporting country to Egypt, therefore, Egypt is open for beef. The Deputy rightly asked why is the beef not going out there. It is not because of the 24 months rule or anything like that. Debentures are taken into account and there is no difficulty in that regard. The certification has been agreed and so on.
The return from the Egyptian market is not as good as the return from the UK and the EU. Thankfully, we are getting that kind of return. Fair play to Irish farmers and the beef industry, they doubled their exports of beef to the UK market last year from approximately 100,000 tonnes to 210,000 tonnes, which is a good return from the UK market. We have all said over the years, including here this evening, that quality and return from the highest market is what we should seek. I agree that we should not put all the beef into our nearest neighbour and the EU market. Every possible outlet for competitive purposes should be opened up. This is why I put such an effort into re-opening the Egyptian market and seeking to have the Gulf states market re-opened. The South African market is looking reasonably positive but I am not sure if it will re-open. There is a better return now on beef than was the case in 1999, 2000 or 2001. There is also a much better premium. There is now the equivalent of 147 pence per pound for beef if one takes the premium into account. However, efforts will continue to be made, including seeking additional export refunds, which we did on four occasions recently for the dairy industry. The story on the Egyptian market is that it is open. However, the industry will not supply to it if it can get a better return from markets in the UK and the EU.
Deputy Penrose raised a number of issues, including premia, headage payments and the 60% advance. He anticipated the reply with regard to EU regulations. Nevertheless, there has been a derogation in recent years, including last year because of the foot and mouth disease crisis, of the requirement to get the 60% up to 80% . The 80% was paid and the reason 20% was left was in case there were over-claims or payments were to be left outstanding.
Red tape and bureaucracy was raised by Deputy Penrose and other Deputies. There was a very successful run of nation-wide meetings, the outcome of which is being evaluated. I attended one of the meetings at which approximately 300 people attended and I am sure other Deputies attended some of the meetings. They were very constructive and were seeking information for two reasons, first, to seek to have applications simplified and, second, to maximise the income from the various schemes. I think they worked out quite well. I agree that facilitation should be the first port of call and proportionality and fairness in the implementation of schemes should be adhered to.
I will look into the twenty to four call about which I am surprised, given that it is in our back yard.
The coded message was that in the case of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease to contact the Department's special unit immediately.
Did the operator ask the Deputy to hold on or anything?
No.
I will find out and get back to the Deputy.
I do not hold on, I like to get prompt attention.
The Deputy likes personal attention at all times. I will ensure that happens.
On the appeals unit, there was a great demand for that unit. The Deputies present were very helpful in that regard. I acceded to some amendments to the Act which allowed for a number of areas outside of cattle and sheep schemes to be included under the appeals system. That matter is progressing satisfactorily. There were some teething problems as is the case in establishing any new structure or organisation. Given that there has been social partnership for some years, we must ensure the social partners are accommodated in regard to these matters. An advertisement for head of the appeals unit was placed in the past month or five weeks. It will be an open competition and interviews will take place. I do not know if anyone here has applied. The unit will be located in Portlaoise.
The suckler cow quota restructuring scheme was raised. I do not favour that scheme. However, all these schemes will be reviewed in mid-term. Macra na Feirme has been making the case for a restructuring scheme similar to the milk scheme.
Low interest loan schemes are in operation in France. France has a slightly different system from Ireland. Normally in Ireland a family member gets the family farm. The biggest problem now is to get a family member to take over farms. There has been a problem in that regard in recent years. I hope there will be enough young people to take over family farms in future. There is a different structure of family operations in France. Usually the person who takes over the farm must buy out other members of the family. These people are left in a fairly difficult financial position, which is not normally the case in Ireland. However, if it is of any great benefit, I will see if it has application in Ireland.
The issue of partnerships was raised. The statutory instrument relating to partnership for dairying will be ready for signature next week. We will then be able to progress the scheme. I hope we will be able to solve any teething problems that may arise in the first six months or year. There is a big future for partnership because people want week-ends off and a better lifestyle. They want to organise their systems a bit better with other family members or in some kind of partnership.
The nitrates issue was raised in regard to whether it is a national or nitrates vulnerable zone system. This issue is currently being considered but no decisions have been reached. Teagasc has given some advice. It is in favour of a national scheme and others are in favour of zones. We will continue with consultations in this regard in compliance with our commitment to social partnership.
Deputies Brady, Crawford and Sheehan raised the issue of BSE. They asked whether a total slaughter-out policy was still the best system. For the time being it is the best system for the following reason. If a person has a breakdown involving one or two animals the whole herd is slaughtered-out. I never heard of a dog being slaughtered, but perhaps that is the case. Was he a wolfhound?
I do not know but it was suggested to me that the dog would have to go with the 300 cattle.
I do not know about canines. That would be a bit severe. However, I will look into that matter.
The single most important reason for a complete slaughter-out is that a number of our markets want totally disease-free herds. The Russian market took out a number of counties. When there is a total slaughter-out, one can re-stock after a period of two months. As one will then have a disease free herd one is free to trade. Similarly, with other products like milk, if you do not have a full slaughter-out you cannot trade in that milk and you are tagged as a person with a BSE breakdown herd and you have a problem with milk supply in that regard. Taking everything into account, at present the best possible way of dealing with the BSE problem is full depopulation but this is neither statutory nor mandatory and there is no EU requirement for it. We have a bigger problem than most other countries because of our dependence on export markets. It is easy enough for countries that have a big domestic market but because of our dependence on export markets, this is the best solution to that problem.
In response to Deputy Johnny Brady's query about meat and bonemeal, we have enough space but this is a very costly problem. It is costly to export it and get other countries to do the thermal heat treatment for us. It would reduce overall costs to the industry if we had thermal treatment processing facilities in Ireland. If we want a long-term natural resource industry we must address the problem of waste. We cannot expect other member states and neighbours to deal with it for us. There is a difficulty there.
I have dealt with the matters raised by Deputy Brady regarding young people in rural areas. The policies of Dúchas and An Taisce are matters for local authority planning departments. I sympathise with Deputy Brady in this matter.
The national beef assurance scheme was passed by the Oireachtas and is now a statutory scheme. All applications have gone out to individual farmers. It is an important scheme from a marketing point of view. We have made progress in the UK and EU markets and the main reasons for this is the confidence consumers in those markets have in our system. The national beef assurance scheme contributes to that confidence and I appeal to people to comply with it. I know farmers are doing that. The veterinary people want to see a centralised payment for the scheme. I am not anxious to make an industry out of this scheme and I want the cost to be minimal. When a vet does his round test I want him to certify the national beef assurance scheme as well. I know that if a centralised payment system is introduced another industry will crop up quickly. Cross-compliance between the national beef assurance scheme and other area-based schemes is not a problem.
The issues of inter-mammaries and veterinary medicines were raised by a number of members. There are EU proposals to have veterinary medicines available on prescription only. These proposals, which the Commission says are based on consumer protection grounds, are currently being considered by a working group at EU level and no proposal has come from the working group to the Council of Ministers. This could take a couple of years. No definitive position has been taken by the EU or by the national authorities here in relation to veterinary medicines. The question of inter-mammaries, by which cows are treated for mastitis and so on, was raised. The fear is that vets would have to call into a milking parlour to administer inter-mammaries themselves. I have given a commitment that as long as I am here - and I hope that will be more than the next few weeks - that this will not be a requirement. It is impractical and bizarre. At present I am having discussions with ICOS and I will have what I hope will be a final meeting tomorrow. If one has a mastitis control programme the tubes of mastitis cream can be made available throughout the co-op system and through creamery stores throughout the country. I have consulted widely in this regard. Many farmers' fears are exaggerated, to say the very least.
No decisions have been taken in relation to directives on animal waste. No decision has been taken with regard to these and there is no question of insisting that farmers have six month storage facilities. There is no need for that. There is a need for farmers to take a degree of care and to comply with good farming practice. The vast majority of farmers do that. They do not put slurry into streams or over spread slurry in wet weather.
If time limits stop farmers spreading between October and March, there is no alternative to six month storage.
Six month storage will not be a requirement. I am looking at this matter at present and no decision has been taken on it. I am looking, particularly, at relatively inexpensive ways of storing farm waste. The cost to many people will be excessive and a facility of more than a certain size requires planning permission, with all the difficulties that involves. I understand the position very well. No decision has been taken on the nitrates and waste directives and wide consultation is taking place in relation to them. A sensible resolution of those matters will be found and put into effect.
Has the Minister spoken to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government about these matters?
I certainly have.
He needs to talk to him a bit more. Deputy Dempsey's idea about slurry is certainly different from the Minister's.
The primary responsibility is a matter for the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, but the people most affected by the whole thing are the farming community and the farming industry.
We know that but does the Minister for the Environment and Local Government know it?
I think so.
It is up to the Minister to make sure he does.
In the EU's attempt to simplify forms, modified regulations were produced before Christmas. Some of these regulations were worse than what we already had.
Most of them were.
We are trying, particularly in the mid-term review, to have the least complex system possible.
The Herod scheme was availed of throughout the European Union but not to a great extent in Ireland. We have made the case to Brussels and I have personally made the case to Commissioner Fischler, to allow the Herod scheme to be introduced in Ireland, specifically for Holstein drop calves that are not worth a great deal. It does not make sense to rear such calves, draw a premium on them and eventually destroy them in some way, when that could be done at an earlier age. However, there are animal welfare considerations and there is a huge resistance to this in Europe at present. We are pursuing this matter to the greatest possible extent.
Deputy Dukes raised the question of the reduction in subhead M1 which refers to on-farm investment. That reflects the phasing out of the old scheme under the old structural funds. I refer him to subhead M2, which refers to the new round. Spending under the schemes there is increased from €2.7 million in 2001 to €46.7 million in 2002. That goes from the old scheme to the new scheme.
Deputy Sheehan referred to the boats. We are not waiting for a spring tide or anything. I will be in Goleen next Saturday and I hope the Deputy will be there. I am visiting the project on the Mizen Head where a boat was nearly wrecked a few years ago.
The Minister should be worried when he goes there because an ex-Taoiseach had a remarkable escape there.
The waters there are choppy waters.
I hope the cellar will be full for Saturday evening.
The vintage stuff will be produced.
On the matter of the boats, last week I cleared a roll-on roll-off, top of the range ferry which is now available as well as 15 dedicated vessels and another roll-on roll-off ferry. The roll-on roll-off ferries are capable of transporting 66 livestock units a week and are approved for the carriage of livestock to the Continent. The Lebanon has already taken 2,391 cattle this year and a third consignment is due to load today. We would like to see more markets reopen and more destinations available. There is no problem with the ferries.
Deputy Sheehan also raised the question of commonage. I, too, have an interest in commonage. Commonages can only create problems for farm based payments where the commonage concerned has been overclaimed. I doubt any of our constituents would overclaim in that regard.
Does it affect suckler and sheep grants?
We have some of the greatest experts on commonages here. If the Deputy gives us details of his constituents who are experiencing problems, we will take up the matter.
It has a bearing on the suckler and ewe premium scheme.
Not unless there is an overclaim. If the Deputy has the herd number or flock number concerned we will sort out the matter. That is the least we can do after the rebuff the Deputy got this evening.
I do not want a quoted message anymore, just action. One other question I wanted an answer on concerned the Milk Rights Group.
The Milk Rights Group had a problem for some considerable time and, having considered the case made by the Chairman, Deputy Dukes and this committee, I conceded the case should be heard. I made seven million gallons of milk available for distribution to the group. They are putting individual cases and are getting assistance from the Department. Documentary evidence is needed from a long time ago and we are assisting them by providing that from the files. The problem is being addressed and I hope appreciation will be shown in south west Cork around the middle of May.
I am sorry for not raising this before. The Minister promised he would get back to us from the Attorney General on the Henshaws issue. I know he is involved with other issues at present but this is a crisis issue for 190 farmers. They entrusted their animals to Department officials and they deserve to be paid. Some of them who sold animals under the direct purchase scheme still have Henshaws' cheques in their pockets. That is not good enough. The amount of money involved is small and the issue is destroying trust between the Department and farmers as far as disease eradication is concerned. What is the current position? It would be crazy for the Minister and farmers to take the legal route because the amount of money spent would be treble what it would cost to settle it.
The position with Henshaws or any plant that goes into liquidation is difficult for the farmers concerned. It is particularly difficult in this situation because Henshaws took reactor cattle. Strong representations have been made on the matter which I am still considering in conjunction with the Attorney General's office. There are no circumstances under which the Exchequer or the taxpayer can pick up the tab for somebody who closes down, leaving farmers without payment. These situations have happened over the years with marts and factories. Circumstances are different in the case of Henshaws because it concerns reactor cattle. I am considering the issue in conjunction with the legal advice made available to me.
It is a totally different issue to any other factory closure. These animals were collected and handed to this factory. The farmers concerned did not know where they were going until the morning they were collected. I know farmers who are in despair. The situation is different to any other because the Department took control of the animals from the word go. In this very same room the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development accepted that the situation would have to be dealt with. I urge the Minister not to allow this matter to become a political football in the election. Farmers need the money now.