Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the ICSA delegation. It is important to have these discussions before the budget. The committee had a good budget discussion yesterday with the Minister. It is vitally important to hear from the farming sector and the representative bodies.

I will respond to some points made in the presentations by Mr. Gilmartin and Mr. Punch. The last point raised is an interesting one. It relates to the overall picture in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the question that is often asked about the administrative burden and inspectors. We heard this morning that 6,000 digital inspections are being carried out around the country. I am sure the witnesses talk to farmers in rural areas often. A raft of inspections have been carried out this year by inspectors around the country. Three inspectors were in west Donegal yesterday inspecting land in what was the wettest year ever. The cost of those inspections is excessive. The question must be asked about the administrative cost within the Department versus the cuts to the schemes. Reference was made to the Croke Park agreement. According to figures, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has an excess of 185 full-time equivalent staff. Issues must be addressed with regard to staffing costs and whether there can be reductions. By 2014, the staff ceiling in the Department must be cut by 433 based on the employment control framework, ECF, ceiling that was set down in conjunction with the EU-IMF programme. If we were to transfer those staff to other Departments there would be a saving, which could and should be transferred into schemes. The Minister must seriously consider this option in the lead-up to the budget.

We all hear commentators and the Dublin media say often that farming is doing well at the moment and farm incomes have increased. That is true to some extent, but we all know that costs have increased as well. The farming schemes are crucial. We are not here to talk about the CAP negotiations, but they are important also. I hope we will have another opportunity to talk about that. Reference was made to the suckler welfare scheme, which is important. There is a provision of €25 million in the budget this year for it. One must take into account that calves born this year will have to be funded next year at a cost of €12 million. That provision must be made available in next year’s budget. According to discussions the committee has had with the Minister, he is looking at the option of not opening the suckler welfare scheme to new entrants next year. That would be a disaster. When the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation, ICBF, was before the committee in recent weeks, one of the questions I asked the delegation was about the importance of the suckler welfare scheme and its funding into the future. The response I got was that the decision on its funding is a no-brainer. It is important that the suckler welfare scheme is available next year. I fully support the argument that the scheme should be available.

Reference was made to the DAS and the REPS. The changes that were introduced to the DAS in last year’s budget did not work because people were able to get derogations and make appeals that were upheld. Some of the appeals are currently being considered and they will be successful because if one is in a special area of conservation or a natural heritage area or is in the REPS or the agri-environment options scheme, AEOS, then the changes introduced do not work. A total of €190 million was allocated and approximately €183 million has already been paid out this year under the DAS. More money remains to be paid out. The DAS is important because it provides aid to farmers on the worst land in the country. The three categories are mountain land, more severely handicapped and less severely handicapped low land. The breakdown of the allocation in the three areas is 35% mountain, 45% more severely handicapped and 20% less severely handicapped. A total of 101,000 farmers were paid under the DAS last year and the average payment was approximately €2,000. I am not sure what the view of the witnesses is on whether money could be saved under the scheme or where the focus of the savings should be. Mountain-type grazing must be totally protected. Those who cannot increase stocking rates should not be asked to do so. To retrospectively ask farmers to increase stocking rates on land that they cannot farm because of the conditions placed on them by the National Parks and Wildlife Service is totally unfair. If savings could be made, should the Minister focus on the less severely handicapped areas, or should no savings be sought on the DAS?

The 62,000 farmers that are gradually coming out of REPS by 2014 are a major concern. The vast majority of them are on poorer quality land than larger farmers and they are dependent on the scheme as a source of income. What should be put in place of the REPS?

AEOS is open for applications until the end of the month but it is not everyone's cup of tea. The conditions attached to the new scheme are very difficult as one can carry out only one activity whereas previously one could have carried out a number of activities such as planting grass or hedgerows. This is unfair.

Taking into account the CAP budget, what do the witnesses suggest the committee should recommend to the Minister in place of REPS? We would love to introduce a new REPS funded as it was previously, but Europe will not allow us to do so. There is scope within the CAP. Installation aid could be introduced for young farmers by the Minister in the budget to incentivise them to re-enter farming. There is much emigration from Ireland, including many young people who have grown up on farms and who will not stay at home because there is no financial incentive to do so. The installation aid and the scheme proposed in the Common Agricultural Policy are good, but a retirement plan should also be put in place. What are the views of the witnesses on this? I know it is not a budgetary issue but it is in tandem.

The changes introduced by the Department of Social Protection to the farm assist scheme are not helpful and should be reversed. There should be no further cuts to the scheme. The taxation measures are self-explanatory and we discussed them with the Minister yesterday. Fianna Fáil would certainly support the proposals made in the witnesses' submission. It is not the right time to penalise farmers or anyone in business with extra costs. We must try to incentivise business across the board, including farming, because those who create jobs, help employment or help the economy to regenerate need to be supported. If the Food Harvest 2020 recommendations are to be achieved, and I believe they will not only be achieved but surpassed by 20% or 30%, we need to support the industry. The only way to do so is to reduce costs such as electricity which is a burden for farmers. Water charges are coming down the tracks. We should consider introducing a retrofit scheme for farming, such as the rainwater harvesting programme in the UK, whereby a grant would be available to farmers to install a rainwater harvesting system to reduce dependence on public water.

If an incentive or stimulus package were to be put in place for one sector in the economy that sector should be agriculture because a report commissioned last year by the UCD school of agriculture showed a farmer almost burns a hole in his or her pocket if he or she has money in it. If a farmer receives €100 from the State he or she will spend an additional €79 on top of it. This is the case with small, medium and large farmers, and is why it is important to protect agriculture in the budget. Agriculture was hit more than most Departments in last year's budget and this was a retrograde step. For every euro saved in agriculture schemes farmers will spend another euro less. Therefore, we must protect them. A disproportionate cut in agriculture is not the correct way to go. The presentation we have seen today recommends holding what we have.

If cuts were to be made in the disadvantaged areas scheme or the suckler cow welfare scheme do the witnesses believe such cuts could be minimised by capping suckler cow scheme payments at 20 or 30 animals or by imposing cuts to the disadvantaged areas scheme on better land as opposed to marginalised land? Is this an option? Do the witnesses believe we need to protect these schemes and that no cuts should be made to them, and that if cuts must be made by the Department it should focus on other areas? I am sure the witnesses have examined the agricultural fund. The Minister or other committee members may not agree with this, but should we examine the greyhound racing industry which receives a €50 million allocation in current spending and €5 million in capital spending? What are the views of the witnesses on this?