Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

No. I have had a lot of engagement with officials in my Department on the issue. Each individual case throws up a range of different issues. One might be mapping issues. Another might be actions on individual plots that the applicant is seeking to opt out of. All those cases require individual attention. They are not routine in their presentation and they require either the applicant to provide further information or the Department to work through all the issues with them as a consequence of the applicant feeding back information to the Department. There is no undue delay on the Department's side in paying people.

Other issues that were raised include areas of natural constraint, ANC. As Deputy Corcoran Kennedy is aware, we benefitted from a decision at EU level to extend the time period for a review of the disadvantaged areas scheme on a range of criteria set down by the Commission on bio-physical criteria. The new deadline is that we must have that completed by the time farmers make their applications for the basic payment scheme in 2019. That breathing space has given us more time and the work is under way. We have given a commitment that in due course there will be an engagement with stakeholders and landowners involved in the process.

In terms of afforestation levels, we have just completed a mid-term review of the forestry programme and that has seen an upwards revision of the afforestation payments and premiums. We would like to see a higher level of afforestation, in particular a higher level of hardwood afforestation. The changes are with a view to trying to drive it further. That is critical from the point of view of our climate change obligations. In total, we are spending in the region of €103 million or €104 million on the forestry programme for 2018, which is a very substantial commitment from the Exchequer. It is not an EU-funded scheme but we are very anxious to increase our afforestation levels.

The first thing to be said on the hen harrier scheme is that there is significant farmer interest in the revised scheme. Already, more than 1,000 applicants have submitted applications. One should bear in mind that those with designated hen harrier lands are entitled to GLAS and GLAS Plus. I always say to those who make the point Deputy Cahill made - I did so even when I was on the opposite side of the table - that the solution to the range of issues those landowners have, and I have considerable sympathy for them, is not a single silver bullet in terms of a hen harrier scheme. It was always meant to be a combination of GLAS, GLAS Plus, the hen harrier scheme and the third piece of the jigsaw was the threat response plan on the current blanket restriction on afforestation. I hope that third part will go the extra bit to restore income opportunities for those landowners. That is something that is on the way. There is a €25 million commitment in the rural development programme for the hen harrier scheme and a combination of those schemes will deliver a solution.

In terms of the suckler cow scheme, I appreciate the point made in the recent Dáil debate. However, what was not clearly articulated in the motion is whether people are talking about a €200 payment per suckler cow on every suckler cow and how it would be funded at a time when all our policy initiatives have been on increasing the genetic merit of the herd. Are we not in danger of standing accused of a lack of joined-up thinking if on the other hand we have a campaign that is merely about driving numbers in the herd at a time when we face challenges around methane emissions in terms of climate change obligations? I take my responsibility seriously in terms of trying to deliver the maximum possible income opportunities to the beef sector. One of the most innovative things to happen in that endeavour, which may have been at a time when a colleague of Deputy McConalogue's was Minister, was that we decoupled and said we would make the payment without the obligation to have the numbers. We said we would make the payment on the basis of a farmer having the minimum stocking density for ANC payments. That would allow farmers to make economic decisions. If we chose the option of making a coupled payment we would be then reverting back to obliging farmers to keep any old stripper or suckler cow for the purposes of the payment, regardless of the quality. I do not think anybody could argue such a move would be to go in the right direction, regardless of the resources we can secure. We are clearly challenged in the context of the rural development programme but in the context of whatever additional resources we can secure in the next CAP I think it should be delivered to farmers with the aim of continuing the journey of improving the genetic merit of the herd and liberating farmers from the obligation to stack numbers and delivering the best opportunity to them in that context. That is something to which I am committed.

Deputy McConalogue raised the issue of GLAS and the reference to €1.4 billion at the time of the announcement of the GLAS scheme. I alluded to some of the rationale behind this earlier when I was talking about the incurred liability of €600 million the current rural development programme inherited from the previous rural development programme. Part of that was around the issue of liabilities under AEOS and the REP scheme, both of which had substantial numbers of farmers working through their contract at that time. It would have been nice if they had all jumped ship on day one and said they would go to the new GLAS scheme but they did not and they had an entitlement to work out their existing contract and then to switch over to GLAS. We inherited a liability. What was envisaged was that of the €1.4 billion, GLAS would incur a liability of €990 million and REPS-AEOS transitional payments from the previous rural development programme would be in excess of €300 million. Cumulatively, it came to approximately €1.38 billion, almost €1.4 billion. That has been clarified for the Deputy in response to numerous parliamentary questions in terms of GLAS, AEOS and REPS. They are all agri-environmental schemes. There is no pot of gold there, regrettably, in terms of underspend that can be redeployed elsewhere. There was a liability. I am sure the Deputy is not suggesting that we should have cut the farmers adrift and said we would not pay them. There was a liability for AEOS and REPS. There was a liability on GLAS and the target was 50,000 applicants and we got the 50,000 applicants. I think the commitment is around €250 million a year at the moment in that space. I appreciate the point Deputy McConalogue made. He hankers back understandably to that press statement on €1.4 billion. It is €1.4 billion but that is a combination of GLAS and inherited liabilities from the previous rural development programme.