Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I join the Chairman and previous speakers in welcoming the delegates whom I thank for their presentations. I come from County Donegal in the north west and I am Fianna Fáil spokesperson on agriculture. It is very useful that the delegates have taken the time to come before the committee to make a presentation on their reports and offer us the opportunity to engage with them in that regard.

Into how much detail did the delegates go while examining spending under the rural development programme in individual countries, in particular Ireland, under the various schemes in place? They may have done so, but if they did not, will they comment on the effectiveness of the schemes? I am interested in hearing about that matter.

The overall point made in the report is that in the previous CAP programme delivery period the schemes became more bureaucratic and more difficult to deliver. That is also our experience domestically. The feedback on changes to the Leader programme which has been a strong driver of rural development is that it is now more bureaucratic, which makes it more difficult to deliver. The experience of those applying under it and the ability of those at local level to direct it are reduced as there is more red tape. This has contributed to it being much slower in getting off the ground and it has also impacted on its effectiveness.

I am interested in hearing the views of the delegates from the European Court of Auditors on agricultural schemes. In this country we are much better at making payments than many of our European colleagues, but there has been an ongoing problem in making payments following on from farmers taking action on various schemes and as a result of funding often being withheld pending the resolution of issues. For example, if an issue arises on a particular scheme, for example, the GLAS environmental scheme, farmers will not be paid until everything is resolved. That goes back to the requirements to be met at European level in making payments, rightly so, as I accept that the money must be accounted for. However, there is a view that there could be more flexibility because of the fact that in many cases the programmes are of five years duration. The funding could be paid because in the unfortunate event that money has to be recouped there are the means to so do. Because of the approach taken many farmers who have spent money, made an impact and delivered the programme are left waiting unnecessarily for funds at the end of the process. I am interested in hearing the view of the delegates on the issue and whether providing for more flexibility is possible in how the schemes are administered.

I am also interested in hearing feedback on the communiqué published by Commissioner Hogan on the next CAP programme and his proposals. There are discussions on providing for more subsidiarity. Do the delegates believe the communiqué takes into account the findings they have made in their report on rural development?