Paul Daly (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I will be brief. I only have a couple of questions. I will not go over ground that has already been covered. Most of our questioning and commentary in situations like this are based on the representations or the volume of calls we get in respect of or relating to particular schemes. Based on that, if I were to honestly answer with regard to my workload since the introduction of ACRES, the biggest issue to highlight, or the greatest number of calls or most contact I had, related to agents. There was a serious issue with the technology agents were putting in plans, in particular, trying to download photographs. There were a few instances where agents were sure they successfully submitted applications only to find out subsequently that not all of the applications went through. There was a great deal of toing and froing with the Department's technology unit, for want of a better term; I do not know if that is what it is called. It took a long time for an admission but, in the end, there was an admission from the Department that it had an issue too. There are customer relations in that regard.

It should have been state upfront that there was an issue with the technology. In fairness to them, some agents carried the can for farmers. If a farmer did not get paid, the first person he or she blamed was the agent. I would like a comment on that side of the technology. We seem to get the technology line when we are talking about payments and the fact payments were delayed or whatever, but there were technology issues long before we ever got the payments, as far as I am aware anyway. I know of many agents who had sleepless nights, as the Secretary General said during the previous session, with regard to this and stuff not getting through. The officials might comment on that with regard to ACRES.

I reiterate a comment I made at a previous meeting at which ACRES was discussed. If it is being rolled out again, even as part of the next CAP, what review of the scheme does the Department do? Did we get the greatest benefit from it? I feel obliged to comment on something I saw first hand that I mentioned previously. I am talking about getting the maximum out of these schemes, in particular with regard to water quality. I am in ACRES. I did the day's training at Teagasc, as did my agent. The farm we were brought to was close to a lake where there were swans. That farmer was in that particular scheme, which meant that he had to strip the land in October. There was a river alongside the field that was all fenced off on the side where we were standing. This was in October. The land had been stripped and the cattle had been moved to the field on the other side of the river, which was not fenced off. Those cattle were drinking from and urinating in the same river for which payment was being made to keep them out of for the previous six months of the year. That was not doing anything for water quality. I would say it was an oversight. I know it was a choice and you did not have to put your entire farm into the scheme, but that was how that particular example panned out. If we are to get maximum benefit from this, what we were gaining in that example as regards water quality going forward was zero. What reviews does the Department do in respect of situations or examples like that in improving the scheme? I am not being critical. It was probably an oversight. It was never thought that kind of contradictory situation could arise but, to avoid that happening again in the next tranche or roll-out of a similar scheme, what internal reviews does the Department do? What improvements do the officials see being made?

Deputy Fitzmaurice covered most of the questions I was going to ask with regard to TAMS other than the reference cost when it comes to the buildings, tanks and sheds. I get a good deal of stuff form the Department about the difference in the Department's reference cost being due to everything that happened over the past couple of years or 18 months with regard to inflation and the war in Ukraine. We know about all the different things that have put upward pressure on prices, especially metals and concrete on the construction side of things. There is a serious gap between the Department's reference cost for a TAMS project and what the project will eventually cost the farmer by the time it has been finished to the specifications that TAMS will make him or her finish it to. I raised this with the Minister previously as a Commencement matter in the Seanad. Where is the Department at with regard to reviewing its reference cost upwards with regard to TAMS bands? Sin é for now.