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

The facts clearly indicate there is no underspend and that the opposite is the case. There is an overspend of at least €105 million and if we include areas of natural constraint, it could be significantly higher, perhaps as high as €227 million. If the Deputy's support for the suckler sector is predicated on an underspend in the rural development programme, God help the suckler sector because there is no underspend.

A number of specific issues were raised. It is said that the devil can cite scripture for his own purpose and I will play devil's advocate for that reason. Not for the first time, Deputy McConalogue alluded to a press statement issued by the former Minister, Deputy Coveney, in which he announced the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS. If the Deputy has the document in front of him, he will see that the Minister also stated that the scheme had a maximum of €5,000, with a GLAS+ top-up of €2,000. It was estimated there would initially be 30,000 participants, with an additional 20,000 participants, leaving 50,000 people in the scheme. That figure has been achieved. That is clearly the extent of the commitment. The Deputy seems to be implying that for some reason the rural development programme should not honour the contractual commitments that existed in other agri-environment schemes, including the agri-environment options scheme and the rural environment protection scheme, as the carryover from the previous scheme. They were very substantial financial carryover obligations, as I mentioned in my opening remarks. We originally estimated the expenditure would be in the region of €630 million and the outturn is showing a figure of just under €600 million. The carried over liability is approximately €599 million. There was no uncertainty whatever in the Minister's statement. There would be 50,000 participants, with a payment to a maximum of €5,000 and a top-up for those eligible for GLAS+ of €2,000. If the Deputy quotes from a statement, he might quote from all of them in the interests of accuracy.

The Deputy asked a number of other questions, including on the beef data and genomics programme, BDGP. We reopened the BDGP and approved all applications. No one was turned away. We had greater ambition for the scheme but it is true that there were significant headwinds. If I recall, the Deputy was not behind the door in encouraging those headwinds against the scheme and some of the farm organisations were equally critical. They subsequently became champions of the scheme and campaigned to open it again. The campaign against the detail of the scheme caused confusion about its merits, at the very least. We would have liked to have had more participants but when the scheme was reopened, the number of applications did not match our ambition. Currently, there are 24,600 applicants. It is a good scheme, which will deliver for the beef industry in terms of carbon efficiency, profitability, etc. We opened it and approved all applications.

Deputy McConalogue asked a specific question on GLAS carryover post-2020. My information is that this would refer primarily to GLAS 3 applicants, of which there are approximately 12,000. The cost of that carryover post-2020 will be in the region of €50 million.

The Deputy also raised a question about the targeted agricultural modernisation schemes, TAMS. We have a total outstanding commitment of more than €100 million for 10,000 farmers who have current approvals issued but the work has not been completed or the Department has not been notified that a claim is to be submitted. We moved from a three-year approval process to a process of 12-month approval. With plant, the approval process is six months in duration. This gives a better capacity to track who is doing what. The first of the three-year approvals expires towards the end of this year. This will give us a better opportunity to profile the demand on the expenditure. We have just concluded an application round for which interest was substantial. We recently closed tranche 10 and it is anticipated there will be 20 tranches under TAMS, each lasting three months. We anticipate significant demand for capital investment of the type envisaged under TAMS and there are various categories, ranging from low-emission slurry spreading to young farmers to tillage. There is a list of six or seven headings under which approval will be made. Two further tranches will be opened this year.

I take Deputy Cahill's point about delays in approvals. To be honest, it is difficult to envisage an application being submitted in the current tranche, which has only just closed, asking for approval to put down a slab for first-cut silage. There is the old Irish saying "Ní hé lá na gaoithe lá na scolb", or it is not the windy day you thatch the roof. There is a period in which an application is processed.

We make every effort to do so but to be applying in the current tranche for slab for first-cut silage is a bit ambitious. The departmental staff will try to accommodate people in most cases.

Deputy Cahill raised the issue of sheep tagging and EID, which is the best available technology in the context of traceability, market access and food safety. We now have the FSA report. I have never hidden from saying there is a cost but there is also a labour saving device and it is much more effective for traceability than the current regime. Transposing 13-digit numbers onto despatch documents is not conducive to accuracy. We have engaged with a lot of stakeholders around all these issues and I am convinced it is the right thing to do and will deliver for the industry in the shape of market access and other gains.

Deputy Cahill also raised the issue of the hen harrier scheme. I have designated land in my constituency so I understand his concerns. I am delighted to have reinstated a scheme which was dropped by a previous Administration in 2008 or 2009 at the height of the crash. I never said it would be the sole vehicle to address the issue raised by Deputy Cahill as there is a blanket ban on afforestation, which is the subject of a long and tortuously slow threat response plan being delivered by the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Department of Arts Heritage and the Gaeltacht. I have been in contact with the relevant Minister and there has been engagement with stakeholders recently that might see some potential for afforestation in some areas, and though the details are yet to be spelled out I have always said a combination of both things could deliver a comprehensive response for landowners. The Deputy also asked about TAMS assistance for milk tanks. TAMS has always been a form of grant aid for purchase and that is the problem. I know there is a tradition in the area of co-operative involvement.

Deputy Kenny referred to GLAS and we have engaged at length on GLAS payments. While there are issues in the Department, the overwhelming majority of cases where payment has not been made are cases where we await the submission of documentation from clients. There are a few cases that might have come through appeals processes or where there were changes in actions on particular plots and they all require resolution by the Department but the Department is working through payment details.

The Deputy spoke about an underspend but there is, in fact, a substantial anticipated overspend in the rural development programme of €160 million. People whose membership of the AEOS scheme is expiring had the opportunity to transfer into GLAS but because the rural development funding is overspent there is now no opportunity to reopen the scheme. There is a hierarchy in terms of qualifying and in terms of the environmental assets which we prioritise and we told people in previous schemes that they could switch over. With the funding now having been committed, however, we would have to take funding from other areas to reopen GLAS. Due to the overspend of €105 million and a possible areas of natural constraint, ANC, overspend of €227 million, the latitude is not there now.

I have dealt with the suckler cow scheme. Our shared objective is to support the beef sector and somebody referred to the recent Teagasc farm incomes data showing two faces to agriculture - one the very successful commercial dairy side, and to a lesser extent tillage, the other the low-income livestock and beef sector. The challenge for the next rural development programme is to find the optimal way to support that sector and I look forward to engaging with this committee on the post-2020 CAP in this context. The detail of the new schemes will be worked on in the immediate period ahead.

Deputy Kenny asked about the Leader programme. I do not want to trespass on other ministerial areas and we effectively act as a postbox in relation to the Leader programme. The funding comes through the rural development programme but it is spent and organised by the Department of Rural and Community Development. I know from speaking to Leader groups in my own constituency that it has been particularly slow but I suggest it is not so different from previous rural development programmes, which cranked up slowly and then took off. I understand that about €5 million of the €250 million has already been spent, although I may be wrong. There was a substantial reorganisation of the Leader groups because, with less funding being available, they wanted to reduce overhead costs and concentrate whatever scarce resources were available on projects at the coalface. A lot of the reorganisation took longer than people anticipated but it has now been concluded and in my own area I have seen the beginning of projects coming through the pipeline and getting funding. I suspect that will accelerate in the months ahead.