Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

On the beef data and genomics programme, how was the original Estimate figure of €52 million calculated? Presumably, the Department had a profile of calving patterns and knew how many cows would calve after 1 July.

The Minister has argued that the reason for the shortfall was late calving rather than farmers not inputting all the data. The Department knows from calving patterns that a certain number of cattle calve after 1 July. Based on its data, what is the ratio of calves born after 1 July compared to the number of calves born before 1 July? How many animals or hectares - the use of hectares in the scheme is a fiction used for the European Union - did the Department expect the scheme to cover? The figure of €17 million appears to be a gross miscalculation by it, particularly if it is still claiming that the scheme will be fully subscribed. My suspicion is that €52 million will not be spent under the scheme in any calendar year. Is the Minister sticking to the view that when the full year returns have been made, €52 million will have been spent under the scheme or does he accept that there will be an underspend in the long term, unless it is reopened? We need the truth on that issue.

I note that provision is made for increased expenditure on the areas of natural constraints scheme. Is the underspend on the scheme one of the reasons the Department is behind schedule in its payments to date? If it expects to exceed the provision for the scheme by such a large amount - approximately €20 million - how does it propose to shovel out so many payments to farmers in the remaining 19 days of the year, especially given its inability to make payments this year to farmers who have been roaring down the telephone every day looking for their money? What is the actual expenditure under the areas of natural constraints scheme?

As the Minister correctly noted, many farmers will not receive their areas of natural constraints payment for 2015 this year. Why is there such a discrepancy between the figures for previous years and the figure to be carried over into next year? Does the Minister understand the point I am trying to make? It does not appear logical that the Department needs a significant amount of additional money this year because one would expect the unspent amount at the end of any given year to be roughly equivalent to the additional amount spent in the early part of the year to meet payments not made in the previous year. As such, one should not need to provide a lot of additional money for the scheme.

What is the estimated additional cost for the islands? This does not refer to the whole island because the islands are entitled to a payment in any case.