Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Simon Coveney, and his officials. The purpose of the meeting is to consider the 2013 allocation for the Estimate of Vote 30 - Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine. I remind Members and witnesses and those in the Visitors Gallery to switch off their mobile telephones. I remind Members of the long-standing ruling of the Chair to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Members will be aware that in December 2011 the Government published its comprehensive expenditure report. That report sets out the Government's decision on expenditure ceilings of each Department for each of the years 2012 to 2014. It indicates specific measures to be introduced by Departments to achieve necessary savings and to remain within their ceilings for 2012 and 2013. This is a first for all of us. I invite the Minister to make his opening comments following which I will open the meeting to Members to tease out some of the issues.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to appear before the committee and hope we can have a constructive dialogue. It is not possible for me to outline the budget for the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine today, which will be presented in six weeks time. That would be an unreasonable ask. What we are trying to do is to have more active discussion in the build up to the budget in order that we can have constructive discussion rather than political point scoring but Members have to decide what they want to do with this today. I will be as open as I can. For a start I cannot give the decisions that will be made in six weeks time because most of those decisions have not yet been made. However, I hope that some of the output today will help to inform those decisions. I want to put the context clearly on the table in order that everybody is aware of the challenges in terms of the expenditure ceilings within which we are operating and the priorities in terms of how we spend money and get best value for it.

We had this problem last year. One of the real difficulties we face is that every Department has expenditure ceilings set for it, essentially by outsiders. If we spend over those ceilings we do not get the money. It is important that people understand that. Certainly those who had been in government before this Government will understand that. It is not a place where anybody enjoys being but it is reality. The expenditure ceilings for this year have been outlined in information provided but essentially those ceilings, in terms of capital expenditure, are €168 million, and in terms of current expenditure are €1.057 billion. We have two choices - to operate within those ceilings or to get a ceiling increase from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, which means other Departments have to take a lowering of their ceiling. The overall expenditure programme and expenditure ceiling for Government is fixed. People need to understand that. When people say it has been a very difficult year for farming and, therefore, one cannot touch any of the schemes, the way I am able to respond to that request is in the context of having rigid expenditure ceilings that can only be changed by the Minister for Finance or Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform agreeing to take money from another Department to spend in our Department. It is important that we have a real conversation rather than one based on emotion or anything else.

It has been a difficult year. It is a more difficult environment in which to put a budget together than this time last year when there had been a combination of good weather, good yields and good prices in most sectors, with the exception of pigs and potatoes. As farmers made more from the marketplace last year than they would normally make it was a little easier to find ways of reducing expenditure. My priorities last year in the build up to the budget were clear, to protect farm incomes while targeting resources towards active farmers, to support productivity and upskilling of farmers, where possible, to ensure the continued development of the agrifood sector through investment in research and development, food safety, animal welfare and enterprise development in line with the Food Harvest 2020 strategy which, as pointed out regularly by Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív and others, was a strategy of the previous Government. I acknowledge it is a good strategy and we are trying to implement it.

I have the twin priority of trying to ensure farmers can be as profitable as possible from the marketplace while recognising the reality that there are many farmers who do not have the capacity to make a good deal of money from the marketplace and who are heavily reliant on the schemes and the single farm payment for their income. It is my job to get the best possible deal within expenditure ceilings and within the CAP reform process which we are negotiating to keep that income stream as strong as possible. We have been around the country talking to farmers about how we are planning to do that in terms of setting priorities. Both of those approaches, in terms of fulfilling the potential of Food Harvest 2020 and the income potential for farmers as well as supporting people on the land who do not have the potential to benefit from Food Harvest 2020, are equally important in drawing up a budget.

What are the expenditure ceilings for this year? I have given the figures but they only become real when compared with last year's figures. Essentially we are being asked to make savings on the current side of €87 million and on the capital side of €27 million, that is, €114 million which will not be easily found. As the committee asked we have included some areas where there will be savings if we do nothing from a policy point of view given that certain schemes are less expensive next year than this year, such as REPS, suckler cow welfare scheme and other savings to be made through driving efficiencies in the Department and in its agencies. The efficiencies that have happened since 2009 which have been driven within the Department regardless of who has been Minister, are impressive. Since 2009 we have made savings in the cost of running the Department of about €70 million. We have reduced staff numbers by approximately 900. In respect of the 58 district veterinary offices around the country we are in the process of reducing the number to 17 while maintaining the same standard and quality of services that farmers expect. In fact, we are improving the service. Payments in respect of disadvantaged areas scheme, REPS, agri-environment options scheme, single farm payments have issued ahead of any previous year. We are trying to do our best to make savings, to reduce the cost of delivery of services, through everything from salaries to overtime, to staff numbers, offices, capital infrastructure to getting a better deal in respect of tendering and contracts as regards outsourcing some services.

We are also insisting on the same changes within our agencies, such as BIM, Bord Bia, Teagasc and others. However, we will not find €114 million in one year from efficiency gains. Therefore, today I would appreciate if people discussed areas in which we may be able to make other savings, without damaging productivity on farms or the support structures needed, particularly after our bad summer and the resulting difficult winter due to the cost of feed, the quality of silage and other related problems. The target is €114 million, unless we can increase that.

We are all in this together. The ceilings were set before I came into office. The ceiling for agriculture was significantly lower, but we increased it significantly last year, particularly on the capital side. If we had not done that, we would have had no forestry programme this year. Of course, I will make the case around the Cabinet table for an increased ceiling for agriculture, particularly on the capital side, as I did last year. Whether I will be successful in obtaining that remains to be seen, given the pressures so many Departments are under, particularly the Departments of Health, Education and Skills and Social Protection. There are pressures in every Department.

We have gone through some of the savings of the €114 million that are possible, but these are not agreed. Therefore, I encourage people not to take them as given. For example, with regard to the suckler cow welfare scheme, we have said we are spending €25 million this year and that if we do nothing, that scheme will cost us €12 million next year. However, obviously farmers want me to put a new scheme in place. Funding for REPS is €185 million this year and this will be down to €168 million next year because there are fewer farmers in REPS. However, we have opened a new AEOS and there are funding implications for that in terms of increased cost. People demanded this and we have delivered on it, but it makes the budget more complex. Similarly, early retirements that are hangover payments from a previous policy will be €24 million this year and €14 million next year, a potential saving of €10 million.

Marketing processing grants will cost €23 million this year and €19 million next year, but they relate to a demand-led scheme. We have companies that have already received agreement on grant aid from the Department and it is up to them as to when they draw that down. Therefore, there is an element of the unknown there, which is one of the many reasons for underspend last year. However, I assure the committee there will be very little, if any, underspend this year as we have been obsessive about this on a monthly basis. With regard to renegotiating the relationship with temporary veterinary inspectors, TVIs, in our factories, they have been very progressive in terms of discussing modernising and improving their role and helping us find savings. We are trying to save another €1 million in this area. We are also seeking to make savings on Teagasc programmes.

We have given the committee an idea of some of the savings possible, to the tune of approximately €48 million. However, it is possible none of these will happen. This is a policy decision I must make on behalf of the Government between now and six weeks time when we have the budget. Therefore, I would appreciate people's input on this. Even if we do all I have suggested, there is still a significant shortfall in terms of what we must save. Therefore, the kind of loose talk about finding low-hanging fruit is irrelevant. We must make real savings, just like we did last year.

Let me remind committee members of the savings we made last year and why we made them. We targeted REPS, because in the current climate REPS is a pretty generous scheme. Many farmers, even if given the opportunity to get into REPS at 10% of a reduction last year, would jump at the opportunity. We felt that we should start with the most generous scheme, REPS. It is a great scheme and I would like to continue with it into the future, if we had the budget for it. However, I thought the fairest place to start saving was with REPS and the 10% reduction in payments made some savings for us last year.

We then looked at the costliest scheme which involves 100,000 farmers, the disadvantaged area payment. In previous years, the cuts to the disadvantaged areas scheme, DAS, simply cut income from everybody, either by reducing the number of hectares for which farmers could apply or by reducing the amount per hectare. We decided that was not the most strategic way to deal with making savings and, therefore, we reshaped the qualification criteria. The idea was to ensure that the people who need the money the most and who were the most active farmers would qualify for DAS payments. As a result of that decision, more than 90,000 of the 100,000 farmers who get DAS have had no reduction in their payment at all. We focused on the other 10,000 who, for whatever reason, are in different circumstances.

In terms of the changed criteria, if people feel they have been caught out unfairly, we have introduced a derogation system for which they can apply and have introduced an appeal system, independent of the Department, in case they are unsuccessful in the derogation system. As a result of all of this, we will not make the savings we hoped for in DAS. We hoped to make €30 million in savings, but will probably only make close to €15 million or €20 million. This has implications in terms of the need for other savings next year, as this saving will not carry from this year into next year. In trying to be fairer with regard to DAS, we have a less scientific calculation in terms of the amount of savings that can be made, due in part to the derogation and appeal system.

Deputy Ó Cuív has criticised me for the way this has been implemented. If we have made some mistakes, let us learn from them and ensure we do not make them again. By and large, the principles and thinking behind the changes to the DAS scheme were much fairer than just taking income from everybody. The change implemented came about as a result of discussions around the table between the Department, farming organisations and Members so as to get the best solution we could. Of course, nobody wants to suffer cuts and will lobby to prevent them.

Today, I would like to hear from committee members what their attitude is towards finding savings, how we can find them and how we can make savings from schemes without damaging farm income significantly. Where, how and who should we target? These are not easy decisions. People may say to me today that I cannot cut anything in agriculture because of the bad summer. With all due respect, that is the job of a lobby group and such groups do that job very effectively and keep me under pressure to try to minimise cuts. However, that would not be a helpful contribution today. That would be politics and would not be helpful in working out the figures.

It is up to the committee members to approach the discussion any way they want. I will answer questions as openly as I can and if I do not have the figures on specific issues, my officials may be able to help out. While I will be as open as possible, I will not provide the budget today. First it is not decided and even if anything was, such a decision should be announced on budget day rather than six weeks early.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The document the Minister sent us has the figure for savings but does not have the breakdown showing how the savings of €48 million would accrue.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I can give the committee the figures again. Let us be clear that these are savings that would be made, if we decided to leave things as they are. However, obviously there is pressure on me to do more.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know and accept that.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Basically, if we decided to continue as we are with no policy change, these are the potential savings that would be made next year as a result of the decisions taken this year, last year or the year before and as a result of schemes being phased out over time.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister said that next year, for example, REPS will reduce from €185 million to €168 million and the suckler welfare scheme, if unchanged, will reduce from €25 million to €12 million. We have the top line figure, but do not have that breakdown, or at least I cannot see it.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Those figures help explain.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I have clarification? Does the saving in suckler welfare mean there would be no suckler welfare scheme next year?

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The scheme is restarted each year.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The suckler welfare scheme is a five year scheme and this is the fifth year.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does that mean there will be no scheme?

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is the point I am making. If I do nothing, there will be no scheme next year. In order for there to be a suckler cow welfare scheme next year I need to put in place a new scheme. In the context of doing nothing, the savings next year are as I have outlined.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was trying to establish that.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am trying to extract the figures.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In which document are these figures outlined?

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The detail was not contained in the document. I am trying to provide these details to be helpful.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be seeking a good deal of information today which I would not expect the Minister to have before him now. If we are to have a real input into this process I hope we could go through it today. We will seek further information and when that information is available, the Minister could come back and listen to our considered input.

We can debate the size of the cut but I accept there will be cuts. It does not take the IMF to tell me that one cannot forever spend more on voted expenditure than one is taking in tax. I do not need any outsider to tell me that. The only people who maintain that one can keep spending more on current expenditure than is being collected in revenue are those living in cloud cuckoo land. The IMF is not dictating this. It is common sense that one cannot live beyond one's means. We were engaged in cuts long before the IMF was here and we were trying to explain to the Opposition at the time that one cannot spend more than one is earning. Even if the bank debt was wiped away tomorrow, in total we are still spending more than we are earning. We need to decide how those cuts will be implemented and where. For the committee to have a meaningful input we need a good deal more information that we have received to date and I am seeking that information. I hope the Minister will come back within one or two weeks to go through it again with the information on which we need to give a considered opinion.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let us have the conversation. This is a new process. It has never happened before. We are trying to be as open as we can and to get input from people who have experience and knowledge but who are not necessarily in government and therefore not directly inputting through the Department. To be fair, my record is one of being as open as I can, whether in debates in the Dáil or Seanad or in conversations in the committee. I will continue in that vein but I will not expose myself to people who seek to abuse the process for political reasons. The more constructive the conversation here, the more open I will be. That is the bottom line.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We were trying to establish the breakdown of the figure on the basis that through natural attrition or whatever, there was no change. Are there any unexpected savings or has any extra expenditure cropped up during the course of 2012 that will have an impact on the sums of €87 million and €27 million?

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Some things are difficult to predict. I was unaware of it before my appointment to the Department but one such area is called EU disallowances. Every year each country gets assessed by the Commission in terms of how they are implementing schemes and single farm payments and so on. The Commission then makes a decision on the amount of receipts they will not return to member states and we must find that money elsewhere. For example, the Netherlands had a disallowance figure of €120 million because it did not implement a scheme in a way the Commission deemed acceptable. We have disallowance bills as well and they vary depending on the scheme and the year and so on. It is something of an unknown but I am pleased to say that we are performing well in respect of disallowances at the moment. It is a potential unknown which could hit us next year. We have managed to negotiate multiannual repayments of disallowances and this helps to ease the blow. However, if one is looking for bills that appear out of left field, that is probably the most likely area, barring some disease outbreak or crisis in agriculture like the dioxin scare, which cost the Government more than €100 million in payments. One must budget for dealing with crises but one cannot budget for a crisis on that scale.

I have taken some criticism for underpayment last year, which will not happen this year, but there is good reason for much of it and it relates to demand-led schemes and more successful disease control programmes than anticipated. Significant savings were made for these reasons and we can go through the detail if people wish. Ultimately, the best thing we can do today is focus on the budget in six weeks time. If Deputy Ó Cuív is serious about inputting into the process I will be serious about facilitating it. This is a new process and it has the potential to be abused but I will try to work through it as we go along.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy McNamara, had you indicated earlier?

Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, I wanted to raise a specific issue relating to the Estimates.

Colm Keaveney (Galway East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will get to several specifics, but first I welcome the Minister. I now understand the great effort that has been made to present the information in this format. If I am correct the Minister is scenario building vis-à-vis what are the possibilities in the budget in light of the executive function of Cabinet and the decision he will make as Minister when it comes to the budget. I have an understanding of where we are.

With respect to constructive proposals I call on the Minister to examine intensively certain areas, including the agencies, where savings could be secured with respect to direct costs to the Department. In particular I am aware of an arrangement in Galway whereby the Department rents at a cost of approximately €800,000 per annum a Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine building in Galway city while there is significant capacity in Teagasc in Athenry. I am prepared to drill down and to help, support and back my Minister in terms of identifying where savings can be made if it means that we can open up opportunities, especially in the area of the suckler cow welfare scheme. I would be alarmed if the Minister suggested that he was building a scenario whereby there could be a €12 million saving next year based on the fact that it is possible that he could opt not to continue it.

However, there is an economic argument for discussing the continuation of the scheme. If my figures are correct, last year we exported almost 115,000 animals abroad under live export. In terms of the cost of that scheme over a five year reference period, is it correct to state that it was a €26 million scheme? Let us suppose the average revenue secured for the cost of an animal was €1,000. That represents almost €115 million to the local economy in terms of the potential spend vis-à-vis the cost of the scheme. There is a solid economic argument we should consider in this area.

It is difficult not to play politics with this process.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is, but Deputy Keaveney has learned from the masters.

Colm Keaveney (Galway East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have learned from the masters. Deputy Ó Cuív is here and welcome. I am not going to do year zero politics.

A Deputy:

It is Labour's way or Frankfurt's way.

Colm Keaveney (Galway East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was Frankfurt's way on the minimum rate of pay and on the universal social charge.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are here to discuss Vote 30, please.

Colm Keaveney (Galway East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The time of the Minister is invaluable and I want to be constructive in terms of scenario building with regard to the disadvantaged area payment. I have a particular interest in this because I come from a constituency that probably has the greatest uptake of the disadvantaged area payment, second only to Deputy Ó Cuív's constituency - we are in the same county. How does the Minister plan to approach this area? Does he envisage administrative savings?

Is consideration being given to securing savings by shaving the necessary amount from the current payment of €3,200 under the scheme? I am interested to know whether savings have been identified in respect of the approach and methodology used last year. In other words, does the Minister intend to drill down into the current methodology to ensure that the cost of administration does not negatively affect the headline payment under the disadvantaged areas payment scheme?

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am concerned that the discussion might be devolving into statements. There are specific areas for discussion within the Vote, dealing both with big ticket items and smaller ones. I presume the Minister and his officials are examining each of these intensely with a view to identifying how savings can be made with the minimal impact. That is what any Minister in any Government would seek to do. We have ascertained that there is very little by way of extra savings accruing from 2012 to carry over into 2013. The figures are €87 million and €27 million, with one scenario, which is to do nothing, allow the schemes to wind up and achieve savings in the order of €48 million, which leaves some €39 million. I understand these savings are nearly all on the current expenditure side.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With the Chairman's permission, I wish to explain why there is a specific structural problem on the capital side. It is important that members understand why the expenditure ceiling is so rigid. We started last year with a ceiling for capital expenditure of €150 million. Forestry alone accounts for €110 million, which includes all forestry premia, at as cost of between €70 and €80 million, as well as afforestation and other grants. All of that is deemed capital expenditure. Taking out that €110 million left us with only €40 million to spend in all of our capital expenditure across fishing, targeted agricultural modernisation schemes and so on. This posed a fundamental structural problem in terms of meeting our obligations and liabilities. That is why we renegotiated an increase in the capital ceiling to €168 million last year. This will be retained in the coming years, notwithstanding the previous proposal that it be reduced. The reason there is a 27% cut is that last year we managed to carry over savings from the previous year of €27 million on the capital side, which pushed the capital envelope up to €195 million, which is where we need to be. Unfortunately, however, that carryover is not available this year because we have been much tighter in our allocations.

As I said, it is important to have a clear understanding of this structural problem on the capital side. While it is possible to transfer savings between current and capital budgets, we certainly do not want a situation where the entirety of our €114 million of savings comes from the current side. I am trying to deal with the structural problem on the capital side whereby the budget of €168 million is simply not adequate, but it is very difficult to secure an increase in that ceiling at the Cabinet table. The current expenditure ceiling is just over €1 billion, which does not include the single farm payment of €1.2 billion. We cannot allow that sector to bear all the cost of the savings we have to make. Attempts to address the structural problem in regard to capital will have a kick-on effect in other areas of expenditure.

Does the Chairman propose that I answer members' questions individually as they are put to me?

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Chairman, I propose that we proceed in a more structured way. It makes little sense to begin by discussing an individual saving of €800,000, €200,000 or whatever - that is like focusing on €1 within a household budget. We need to look at the big picture in a structured way. I propose, through the Chair, that we lay out a programme of work under which we would look first at 2012, anticipating savings and so on for this year, before moving onto 2013.

In that regard, I would like, before proceeding any further, to put a specific question to the Minister. I accept there must be cuts in expenditure, but it is important that they are equitable across Departments. In that context, will the Minister indicate the proposed percentage cut for his Vote as between 2012 and 2013 and how that compares with other Departments? In other words, is agriculture taking a larger hit than other Departments in terms of the distribution of Exchequer funding? Before getting into detail on particular spending programmes, we must consider the broader question of whether cutbacks have been spread equitably across the big spending Departments.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Members should be aware that I am obliged to leave at noon. I am happy to answer Deputy Ó Cuív's question, but I am anxious to emphasise that I am under a time constraint. I have no intention of departing under questioning but I must leave at noon.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I should have informed members at the start of the meeting that the Minister has to leave at noon. On the specific point raised by Deputy Ó Cuív, it was my understanding that each Department is required to implement a 5% reduction in capital expenditure. Is that correct?

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. The various Departments are required to implement different percentage cuts.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the mean of the total cut across all Departments and what is the percentage for the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine?

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not have the figures for other Departments. If one takes out single farm payment allocation-----

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not asking about single farm payments.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Deputy let me answer the question?

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Of course we take out the single farm payment, which comes directly from Europe. The Minister is merely the postman when it comes to that scheme.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Allow me to nail down that point. The single farm payment does not come directly from Europe to farmers. In fact, it must be administered by my Department, which involves a cost. More than 400 staff are employed in administering the scheme.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not part of the Department's Vote.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appeal to the Chair that I be allowed to answer the questions that are put to me.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister should proceed.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Excluding the single farm payment allocation, the reduction in our expenditure ceiling is 8.5%. That assumes there is no change in our allocation and the figures we have outlined today are delivered. Some Departments will have a higher percentage cut and others a lower one.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Chairman, I propose that we adjourn the meeting. A vote has been called in the Dáil and the Minister must leave at noon. I further propose that we make a submission to you outlining the documentation we require to give these Estimates proper consideration, with the discussion to recommence at a future date.

Martin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why would we adjourn the meeting when the Minister is here until noon?

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am anxious that everybody has an opportunity to contribute. Deputy Ó Cuív's proposal is valid but-----

Martin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister has given of his time to answer our questions.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am happy to keep the meeting going until noon.

Martin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Chairman. Will the Minister outline the mechanism in broad terms as to how European money and co-funded money comes into the Department and how it is dealt with in regard to the budget, both capital and current?

Michael Comiskey (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it possible for several schemes to be grouped together in terms of their administration? Given that there are fewer people in REPS, for example, could some of the staff employed to administer that scheme be deployed to other schemes, thus allowing for a reduction in costs? Perhaps that is already happening.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose that the meeting be suspended until after the Dáil vote.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If I may, Chairman, I will briefly answer Deputy Ó Cuív's question. It is a fair question in the context of the article in The Irish Times today which suggests there has been a 40% cut in schemes in the past five years. It is important to answer articles like this so that people understand the reality.

If one takes the farm waste management scheme, which was for a specific purpose and cost €413 million, and if one takes out the administrative budget for the cost of delivering these schemes in terms of the savings we have made, which is €303 million, the figure for the reduction in expenditure on schemes during the past five years, forgetting about which parties were in government, has been 20%, not 40%.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Over the last few years.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Over the last five years. One can twist and turn these figures whatever way one wants. In terms of the savings we are being asked to make versus other Departments next year, our figure is 8.5%. My colleague is calculating the savings in respect of some other Departments and I will give the members those figures. My job is to minimise the amount of cuts we have to make in our Department, first and foremost, around the Cabinet table and, second, to spend the money as constructively as we can.

For the purposes of this meeting, the idea that we will able to make a decision on the amount of money we will spend next year is, with respect, a bit of a waste of time because that is an argument I have to win around the Cabinet table. If we have to make savings what we could do here, and the members will find me to be constructive on this, is discuss how we might make and structure them. For example, is the approach I took to DAS last year better than an approach of taking money off the top and, if we are taking money off the top, should we target the area for which farmers can apply in order that we prioritise smaller rather than bigger farmers? Should we examine trying to differentiate between farmers in disadvantaged areas in terms of levels of disadvantage? These are the kinds of difficult discussions into which the members could make an interesting input and to which I will listen and that will influence policy, but it is up to the members as to whether they want to be involved in that process.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to suspend the proceedings until after the division in the Dáil.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Had Deputy Heydon concluded or did he wish to make another point?

Martin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I had one further question to ask. In a follow-on to my initial question, the Minister might outline the mechanism in respect of European money, match funding and how that is calculated between the current and capital sides. Second, on the suckler cow welfare scheme, I understand the Minister's point that for that scheme to operate next year, it would be necessary to introduce a new scheme. The Minister should provide members with the anticipated cost of such a measure, as they would then know how much it would be necessary to find from another area were that option to be taken. Obviously, it would then be necessary to make choices, as were one to operate such a scheme, it would be necessary to cut something else.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How does the percentage reduction in the budget of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine compare with last year?

Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have three relatively succinct questions. I am unsure whether I agree with my colleague, Deputy Keaveney, on the link between live exports and the suckler cow premium. Nevertheless, there is a necessity to keep open the live exports channel. While the great majority of live exports of calves are not from suckler cow herds but from dairy herds at present, it is necessary to keep open that channel to ensure the factories do not have a monopoly. What can the Department do in this economic climate to ensure that?

Second, I am not being politically disingenuous, as I realise this decision primarily will be made by my Labour Party colleague, Deputy Quinn, but does the Minister agree with the differentiation between productive and non-productive assets? It is a budgetary decision, albeit not in agriculture, to differentiate between productive and non-productive assets in respect of third level grants.

Finally, everything the Government does and every measure the Government takes in cutting expenditure must be considered in the context of the effect it will have on job creation. One issue the Government has been pressing is food and whether incentives might be put in place. Again, this may be an issue that is more for the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, and my Labour Party colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, and I am not being disingenuous in this regard. However, can measures be put in place to incentivise investment in secondary and tertiary production in the food sector and in plants to that effect?

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will take that list of questions. First, as I note we did not finalise the manner in which the meeting was to work, I wish to establish there is no material impact on the 2013 budget as a result of either unexpected cost savings or additional expenditure from the 2012 allocation. I seek clarity in respect of the 2013 figure.

The Minister has outlined the implications, including the €48 million potential, if nothing was to happen through natural reductions. However, there is no carryover surplus or deficit.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It will be in the previous year.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps the Minister can explain this because it is relevant to this question. He has said that the DAS savings will be €15 million less than anticipated. Does that mean he will have to hold back €15 million of DAS payments from this year into next year?

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let me explain that. On that question first, if we do not make the savings we had hoped to make on DAS, we will be paying out everything that we would have been paying out on DAS but we will have to make those savings from other areas this year. We have had to re-jig our figures through the year, as we saw those savings or non-savings materialising. We have had to factor that in. In other words, if we save €15 million rather than €30 million this year on DAS we can deal with that in this year's budget. All the payments that should and will be happening will be on schedule. In fact, we are ahead of schedule on DAS payments.

However, it has an implication for next year. If one were to reduce the cost of DAS from €200 million to €190 million, which was the plan, and if one has only made €15 million in savings rather than €30 million, instead of it being €90 million it is €105 million next year. Therefore, the starting point is higher which puts one under more pressure in terms of calculating knock-on savings from a smaller scheme. That makes the budget arithmetic a bit more difficult. It also means that the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform will be saying, and is saying to me: "Look, you said you were going to downsize this scheme to €190 million rather than €230 million; now you have to go ahead and fulfil that commitment." There are knock-on consequences of the decisions we made to try to be more surgical in making savings and being as fair as we possibly can to farmers.

There are pros and cons in trying to do that differently. It is easy to make a calculation on DAS if one just takes 5% off the top from everybody. Maybe that is something we can discuss in more detail if we come back again. We can specifically focus on DAS if members so wish, but that is the current position.

I wish to answer some of the other questions to try to be fair to everybody. A number of committee members have talked about the pros and cons of live cattle exports. My preference is to produce, raise and kill all the animals that we can in Ireland. The jobs are in Irish factories, along with the added value. That is where we control the Irish brand in terms of beef - which is a growing brand at the moment - quality and new markets.

It is important to have the option of live cattle exports as a release valve. As people keep saying, we have had a difficult year. If we have a wet week an awful lot of farmers cannot afford to hold on to their animals. They do not have space inside and they are forced to take animals to the factory. They are vulnerable as regards the price they may have to accept for their animals, so we need an alternative. That is why we are working hard on trying to get a boat to Libya or Egypt before the end of the year. I need to impose acceptable and high veterinary standards on any such boat. I have spoken to a number of potential live cattle exporters, some of whom have successfully done this in the past. People are now actively looking at chartering a ship to take shipments of live cattle from Waterford and Cork. They are hoping to do it in the next six weeks, if they can put the whole package together. The Department has worked hard to put veterinary certificates in place with Libya most recently, but also with Egypt, to provide for that market if someone can put the business plan together to make it happen. Farmers would really like that to happen because it would give them an outlet, particularly for the lower quality beef coming from the dairy herd where markets in the factory might not be as strong as they were previously.

I wanted to let the committee know that that is happening and it is a positive story. It is not something that we want a lot of but we do want it as an alternative option for farmers to ensure they get the value for their animals that they deserve in the market place.

As regards productive assets, I do not want to be overly political but if one understands farming one will understand that a lot of farmers across the country are asset rich but cash poor. The average farming income is approximately €24,000 per year. It is a lot higher for full-time farmers but many farmers do other things as well. The idea that one could accurately measure a farmer's capacity to deal with the cost of sending sons and daughters to college by calculating that capacity to pay on the back of land assets and agriculture is not realistic. The Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, is doing what everyone expects him to do, which is to look at ways of making savings and ensuring that the money he has to spend on third-level grants goes to those who need it most. Therefore, we need to go through that process. My view, as it relates to farming, agriculture and small businesses generally is that one needs to be careful how one manages a family's ability to pay for the cost of third-level education. Including assets in that mix is not an easy thing to do, so we need to be careful of it. We are being careful of it, which is why there has not been any announcement to date. I have spoken to the Minister, Deputy Quinn, about this on numerous occasions and he clearly understands my view on it.

As regards the co-funding issue and ceilings, many people ask me why does money from Europe count against the country's expenditure ceilings. It is a fair question. When payments are 100% paid from the EU, like the single farm payment, they are not factored into ceilings. However, all the co-funded schemes - even if they were 95% funded by the EU in terms of rebates - would still be counted as 100% against our ceiling. That is the deal, I am afraid. Essentially, the troika programme is about trying to reduce the size and scale of Government expenditure across the board, so that is why the ceiling applies to co-funded schemes as much as to schemes that are 100% funded by the State. Of course, we need to be clever about how we manage that. Obviously it makes sense for us to try to increase the co-funding element of schemes for the general Exchequer. If I can do that it helps me to argue for an increase in ceilings, which is what we are trying to do.

While some people might say it is easy, in terms of expenditure ceilings, to introduce a new agri-environment options scheme, AEOS, because 70% of the money comes from Europe, it is not. It is 100% of the cost but we have had that discussion in this committee before.

If we were to continue the suckler cow welfare scheme, the cost is about €25 million annually. If we do not reintroduce the new scheme, we will still be spending €12 million next year. That is because calves being born at the moment that are eligible for payments will be getting those payments next year. That is the way it works. Even if there was no suckler cow welfare scheme next year, nearly half the money we would normally be paying would still be paid out. There are strategic aspects of the suckler cow welfare scheme which have been beneficial for Irish agriculture, yet were not anticipated at the start, such as data collection on breeding, how animals respond to feed conversion efficiency and age. A whole series of others things also help us to make commercial strategic decisions that can help farmers make more money from their business. The suckler cow welfare scheme has made a significant contribution to that type of strategic thinking due to the data it provides into the system. We simply would not get those data from farmers if they were not in this scheme. We need to weigh up how we can hold on to what has been really important for the scheme.

If we are going to have any replacement scheme, we need to know how we might be able to afford it. The Deputy knows the figure at this stage. If we add another €12 million, then that is another €12 million that has to be added to the €114 million along with the cost of the agri-environment options scheme, AEOS.

My Department has been asked to cut 8.5% of its budget. If we discount the increased ceiling we got last year, the cuts come to 8%. Compared with other Departments, the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources has to cut by 9%, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, 11%, and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, 6.5%. There are other Departments which are higher but we are in the top third. These are the figures at the moment. It is up to the Government to decide whether to rejig those expenditure ceilings and change priorities, a process which will go on over the next six weeks.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Going back to the figure of €114 million, does the AEOS have to be added on to that?

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would any provision for a suckler cow welfare scheme, say for €12 million, have to be added on to that?

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If one were to pay out as much as we are currently paying out, which is about €25 million, one would have to add on €12 million on what would be paid next year.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How much does AEOS come to?

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

AEOS is a €20 million scheme per year. Next year, AEOS starts from March because of the processing time and so forth. The scheme’s payments will not cover the year.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How much is the Department budgeting for AEOS 3?

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Most of the cost of AEOS 3 for next year will be paid in the following year.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Minister only allowing for a nominal amount of a couple of million euro?

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Most of the AEOS expenditure next year will be on AEOS 1 and 2 which we have already factored into this.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would a figure of €15 million, just for the purpose of what we are trying to get to here today, for the provision of a suckler welfare scheme and the AEOS provision for 2013 be accurate?

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That would be a ballpark figure.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Accordingly, we take this from the €48 million figure which brings this down to €33 million of savings. If we take this off €114 million, we are left with €81 million.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is the kind of conversation we are having.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the nuts and bolts of it.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are many ways of making those savings.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is what we are trying to get to here.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister claimed he will reduce the disadvantaged areas scheme, DAS, from €105 million to €90 million with no policy change.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not say that. I said I will not know until the end of the year whether it is €15 million or €20 million. It is possible that instead of making savings of €30 million, it may be somewhere between €15 million and €20 million. We have to see what the final drawdown is, as well as what the appeals and derogation processes turn up.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It appears to me that the Minister is being optimistic. There have been some crazy refusals. I had three cases last weekend of elderly farmers who had applied for derogations on medical grounds but were refused. The Minister will find these kinds of cases will win on appeal. To cut to the chase, the Department gets a month-by-month expenditure list against profile and knows its expected outturn.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is difficult to be accurate because many of the schemes we operate are demand-led schemes. Under the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS, we have to wait for applicants. If people do not draw down the money from a processing grant, we do not spend it then.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Every month the Minister gets expenditure on every item to date and the profile.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Those profiles are changed as appropriate.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At the bottom there could be a commentary on likely overruns and underruns. We could request all of this information under freedom of information. However, it would be handier if we were just given it.

I would like to get a breakdown of the various grades of staff in the Department and agencies under its aegis. For example, in the case of Teagasc I want to know how many staff are researchers and how many are administration. It is important we do not cut research staff at that agency. If we could get this breakdown, we could make informed decisions about savings in administration. I believe we must put the knife in and insist under the Croke Park agreement that much more efficient methods are brought into departmental administrative systems. The Minister often speaks about the legacy Fianna Fáil left. In my view that agreement was a good legacy. There were difficulties in getting new technology accepted in Departments to allow for faster methods of doing things. If we are going to engage in this process, it is important we get those figures.

The Minister decided to cut payments in the DAS using stocking levels as the basis. However, farms in mountain areas have low stocking levels due to land use. Now the Minister finds he has to give a derogation in cases involving small mountain farms. There are also different rates of payment in each of the three categories: less favoured areas, LFAs, get €80, very disadvantaged get €90 and it is a mixture on the mountains between €90 and €100. The basis of the DAS is that one gets paid for the amount of disadvantage associated with the land quality in one’s region. There are parts of the country that do not get DAS because they are deemed to be good land. Will the Minister give us the relative productivity of farms in good land areas, LFAs and the mountain areas? If we knew that, then we could decide on the relative support to balance the DAS.

May I answer some of those questions because I do not want to run out of time? They are fair questions.

When the Deputy asked about derogation and the appeals process, he was referring to the criteria we introduced for the stocking rate. We stated that farmers will only qualify for a disadvantaged areas payment this year if their stocking rate was 0.3% of a stocking unit per hectare rather than 0.15%. The 0.3% figure none the less represents an incredibly low stocking rate but some parts of the country are more rock than grass and there is a reason for allowing a stocking rate of less than 0.3%. Those individuals are getting the derogation. Similarly, if farms have a low stocking rate because of illness in the family, transfer of land or another valid reason we will try to take that into account. However, one of the reasons for these criteria is that certain individuals are putting the bare minimum number of stock on the land for the shortest possible period to draw down payments. As we can no longer afford that type of luxury, we are trying to differentiate between genuine applicants who are trying to farm with a reasonable stocking rate and those who, for example, are farming in areas such as counties Meath and Kildare and are purchasing or renting land in upland areas of counties Sligo and Donegal to keep sheep at the bare minimum stocking rate for three months of the year. There are instances of flocks of sheep moving between farms in order to allow everyone to draw payments.

We can potentially do more in that area and even if we were not planning cuts we would probably make similar adjustments with the same budget to ensure those who deserve the money the most are getting it. Under CAP reform we are being asked to be more scientific in categorising disadvantaged areas. Instead of designating geographical regions in order that Ireland west of a certain line is automatically a disadvantaged area, we might provide details on a parish by parish basis of the depth of the soil, moisture retention qualities, climate and stocking rate to allow us to make a scientific argument around disadvantage. We are in the midst of that assessment but it probably will not be completed until the end of 2015. It is a significant project to break the country into different regions based on levels of disadvantage. The work will also gives rise to significant political problems if we start to break up areas that are currently considered disadvantaged into pockets that may or may not be disadvantaged. It may not be possible to deal with the issue within the CAP reform process and it may be kicked on to be dealt with afterwards. The kind of detail that Deputy Ó Cuív seeks cannot be produced overnight. The process of deciding an appropriate mechanism for determining disadvantage requires co-operation from farming organisations and farmers themselves, as well as a considerable amount of scientific work in the fields. The question then arises of how farmers can be supported through a scheme that reflects the process. By all means let us have a discussion but the issues arising are not straightforward.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What I am suggesting is very simple. Data must be available somewhere because the country is divided into three regions under the scheme, namely, mountainous areas, severely disadvantaged areas and less favoured areas. Three different rates are being paid. Somebody must have calculated those rates.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have made those calculations. Those data are available. The Commission is asking for more detailed data, however.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are not debating CAP reform; we are discussing the budget for 2013. Historical data are available and, therefore, I am asking about the three categories as before, with three relative rates of pay, and the need to investigate whether those rates reflect the overall quality of the land on which they are based. We are entitled to that information and if I cannot get it this way I will get it through a freedom of information request.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That information is available; it is not hidden. We considered making decisions on cuts last year on the basis of levels of disadvantage in respect of making savings in the disadvantaged areas scheme. We can do that again this year. We made a decision on that very issue. In my view farms that are split between disadvantaged areas and non-disadvantaged areas are not as disadvantaged in their disadvantaged segment as farms that are fully in disadvantaged areas. If 70% of a farm is non-disadvantaged, the farmer should not get the same level of payment on the remaining 30% as someone whose entire farm is in a disadvantaged area. We changed that part of the scheme. Farmers whose lands are partially in disadvantaged areas will only get a proportion of disadvantaged payment relative to the overall amount of land that is in the disadvantaged area.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That was a constructive change and I agree with it.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have given thought to what the Deputy suggests. We even considered going further in terms of differentiating between less favoured and severely disadvantaged areas. We will revisit the issue this year.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In regard to the allocation, which was €220 million, is now approximately €205 million and will be €190 million, is it possible to indicate how it is broken down into the three categories?

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have that information.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can the Minister also indicate the average payment for each area? That is what we need.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We can probably do that.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Am I correct to say that the maximum payment is the same regardless of designation?

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, payments vary from €80 to €100 per hectare.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am asking about the maximum payment. Is it €3,400 regardless of category?

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is right.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would be useful to the committee to get a breakdown of the total figure in each category and the average payments.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If members so wish we could arrange a meeting to discuss the disadvantaged areas scheme. I would be happy to take the committee through the details. We could then consider the choices in terms of how we can make savings. It is possible that we may not have to make savings but at least the choices will be on the table so that people understand how we reached our decisions.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are several big ticket figures in the allocation. Can some of this money be reallocated? Even if it was not a lot it would be helpful.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I can also provide the figures on staff numbers which were sought earlier.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the committee has access to these figures we would have something with which to work. I ask the Minister to forgive us if we are doing a lot of trawling at present because, while he has given us a clear indication on the €48 million, we did not have the relevant details prior to the meeting. The discussion may have been somewhat laborious but it was necessary to go into this level of detail.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Few around this table would not like to think we have bled general administration for all that can be taken.

That does not affect the people we are trying to help, which are farmers. We first need to have a detailed discussion on how much can be taken out of the administrative budget. That is why I want to differentiate between staff in research and those in administration and so on.

My gut feeling is that, as the Minister has eloquently outlined, the suckler cow scheme improves the product we put on the markets. The other schemes are often income supports and, therefore, even though it means making other savings elsewhere in the budget, we should examine the retention of the suckler cow scheme before squaring the circle and finding the €12 million needed. This scheme is of huge benefit to Ireland Inc. because it relates, as the Minister said, to the quality of the cattle we produce. It has, I understand, had a demonstrable effect on the quality of the national herd. I am interested in research on that.

These are the big decisions we have to make clear. We are hanging ourselves by doing this because we are not playing the normal game but I welcome that members are being given an opportunity to have an input into the thought processes. We will do so responsibly. We might not all agree with the Minister's decisions but we have to face the fact that there must be cuts and we can have an argument about the percentage. Governments have a nasty habit - ours was no different and this one does not appear to be any different - of making disproportionately high cuts in the budgets of small Departments, such as the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. I used to spend in a week in the Department of Social Protection what I spent in a year in the old Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. The insistence was on taking a significant percentage cut out of small Departments, but there was no cash in it. A 10% cut in the budget in the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs equated to €40 million, but I spent €100 million a day in the Department of Social Protection. There is a habit of taking a big cut out of the budgets of small Departments and not facing up to the fact that we will not sort out our fiscal problems unless we tackle the big ticket items of pay and pensions and social protection.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have a job to do. That is another argument.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These are the arguments that happen at Cabinet.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Minister reflect on what was said at the committee last Tuesday by representatives of Teagasc and the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation? They clearly outlined that the suckler cow welfare scheme is critical to meeting Food Harvest 2020 targets and to bringing the beef sector up to the same standard as the dairy sector. For this, if for no other reason, the scheme should be protected.

Deputy Ó Cuív mentioned the State agencies - Teagasc, Bord Bia, the Marine Institute, Bord Iascaigh Mhara - and the food aid development programme. The allocation to these under programme A amounts to €192 million. We need to closely examine how that is broken down and whether savings can be made.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The food aid development programmes cost €9 million or €10 million. In case any member thinks this is an easy win, if we do not pay that, the funding stream is transferred to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. This is part of our Government commitment to development aid. It is not money that could be transferred to, for example, the suckler cow welfare scheme.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Subhead A11 is the horse and greyhound racing fund at more than €56 million, which has been largely untouched. Let us see what bang we are getting for that buck. We should examine that.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am happy to have a conversation about that.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When the Senator looks at the figure, he must suggest alternatives. I hope everybody appreciates this has been a finding-our-feet exercise. I welcome members' attempts to engage constructively and I accept there will be political differences, but there are big ticket numbers. Senator Ó Domhnaill highlighted one allocation and the DAS is another. There are also smaller allocations. The €1 millions add up as well as the €10 millions and the €5 millions. We should examine them all to see if we can make constructive suggestions. If we want to factor in the retention of the suckler cow welfare scheme, we know the permutations for the overall budget reduction. The Minister has indicated he is willing to appear before the committee again to engage with us. If the members stay for five minutes, we will have a quick discussion about that.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am encouraged by the debate. If members are genuinely serious about engaging in helping me to put a better budget together, I will actively participate in that discussion. It would be great if mine was the first Department to do that successfully though the committee system. However, if members start abusing this, I will pull the shutters down because I have to protect my Department and the Government politically as well. Members will find that I am open and constructive, I hope, in taking suggestions on board. If they are serious about trying to find ways to save money that we cannot avoid saving and we get to the point of agreeing that, then we could have a fruitful discussion. If the next time we meet we have a specific planned discussion on, for example, the DAS, that would be helpful, because otherwise I could bluff along and get through these meetings with members trying to land punches in the usual way. We can try to get under the skin of this and have a serious discussion, which I am willing to have, and I am willing to provide information if members want to do that.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With the benefit of the information provided for this meeting and an examination of the programmes, we can meet before we meet the Minister again to identify the relevant areas. If the committee is of the opinion that we should continue with the suckler cow welfare scheme while accepting there is an AEOS with a €15 million allocation, we have tangible figures that we can work with. We did not have them previously. I thank the Minister and his officials.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Chairman's suggestion is useful, but if we are to engage in this we need the same information the Minister is going through daily in his Department, because without that information we will be unable to make a realistic input. Everything is predicated on no policy change. We need the information we requested, including what has happened so far this year, what is the likely outturn, where are the savings and overruns and so on, and the detail of that staff breakdown. I do not doubt the Minister noted our requests. If that could be provided, we could then have a meeting and come back with a better focus on where savings could be made and how they might be achieved.

Pat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We should go through each subhead at the next meeting.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We should have a private meeting first on foot of the information. I again thank the Minister.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to make one final suggestion. It may be useful to have a private meeting in this room to discuss some of these issues. If members are being watched by journalists who are looking for headlines and so on, it makes it more difficult in some ways for me to be open and it also makes it more difficult for Opposition members to talk about the issues on which we have to make decisions. That is up to the committee.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is more or less what I was suggesting. We will try to accommodate the Minister's diary to have another meeting. I ask members to stay back for five minutes when the Minister withdraws. I thank the Minister and his officials.