Paul Connaughton (Galway East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the briefing on the beef data and genomics programme, but this seems unusual, as the closing date has passed. We had a meeting on the scheme in Tuam three or four weeks ago. The officials should have been there in front of 700 farmers to go through the scheme with them. I know a number of people withdrew their application on the basis of what they heard. Now they want to go back in.

This is a relatively good news story. The suckler herd has been crying out for this for years. It is an environmental scheme, but the work involves the animals. It is a crossover scheme whereby the farmer is paid per hectare, based on the animals.

I know from talking to breeders that the price of pedigree bulls with four or five stars has increased in the past number of weeks and is now between €1,000 and €1,200 a head. There is no reliability whatsoever in respect of some of these animals. Is there a concern that the star rating will fall by the time we start to see the progeny in 20 to 24 months? A farmer could be buying trouble right now to make up the scheme. I know Mr. Gleeson says they must have it by 2018, but the farmers are doing it now already. There must be some concern within the Department that the animals that farmers are buying now will not be good in three years' time and the progeny will not be good in three or four years' time. I am not trying to be dramatic, but instead of using a good eye to look at animals before he buys them, a farmer might as well buy an animal from the newspaper based on it being a four star or five star animal. Are the marts able to provide the star rating of the animals that are being sold in the ring? Up to now the weight was the most important element.

I welcome the fact that money is being spent on the suckler herd. Let me give an example of the level of confusion about the scheme. A farmer in south Galway participated in the genotyping programme - I acknowledge that that scheme is different from the scheme we are discussing - but missed out on genotyping one cow and suffered a 100% penalty. Mr. Gleeson assures us that this scheme will be flexible, but there is not that level of trust on the ground. What Mr. Gleeson says and what we as members say is not good enough because the real experience of the past number of years does not bear it out. It is about building up that trust again.

There are still too many unanswered questions. Even though we say there is a lead time of two or three years, people want to know what the review will look at in three years' time. What can be changed? If I miss an action, what is the penalty for that one missed action? What number of penalties add up to a 100% penalty? There is nothing worse than having a system under which a problem found in the fifth year can result in a requirement for a farmer to return all moneys received for the first four years. That is no good for the suckler herd. The majority of farmers are trying to improve their stock and improve the cattle they have for export. They would welcome the money coming into the suckler herd, but is it worth taking the chance if they cannot work with the Department? I think the Department is behind the curve on this issue.

It is a bit ridiculous that this briefing session did not happen six weeks ago, but is happening after the deadline has passed.