Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to address some of the Minister's comments. The Minister indicated that he was confused at my opening comment on why we were at the committee discussing this matter. The Minister indicated it was his understanding that it was the view or wish of the Business Committee of the Dáil that this should be dealt with at the Joint Oireachtas committee and that the Minister was complying with that desire.

I will clarify the position. The motion passed by the Dáil required the Minister to carry out a review of the rural development programme within two months and report on the spending commitments made and the participation rates for the schemes, but he did not do so. When he failed to do so, I wrote to him and the Ceann Comhairle about his failure to comply with the motion. The Minister responded to me by letter to the effect that he had answered questions about the rural development programme at a previous meeting of the committee and believed that in so doing he had done all that was required of him. I then wrote again to him and the Ceann Comhairle. When the Business Committee next discussed the issue, this committee had already written to the Minister asking him to appear before it to account for his failure to follow through on what was requested of him in the motion. We are here on the basis of his failure to comply with the motion to carry out a review of the rural development programme.

The Minister has indicated that support for the suckler cow sector is predicated on there being an underspend under the rural development programme. During the debate on the motion Fianna Fáil called for support for the suckler cow sector, which is under massive pressure. There are parts of the country where engagement in suckler beef and sheep production is the only suitable farm enterprise. We need to work together to support the farmers involved to continue to make a living. The motion sought to establish whether there was an underspend under the rural development programme and, if such underspend was identified, to ensure it would be directed towards providing support for the suckler cow sector. The motion also stated that, regardless of the underspend, the position on which needed to be clarified in the immediate term, we needed to work together in the next CAP negotiations to support the suckler cow sector. That was Fianna Fáil's position on the matter. The Minister has since been dismissive of any need for support for the suckler cow sector. Earlier this year he floated the idea of an early slaughter premium to support the sector, but a couple of months later he said he no longer supported that proposal, such that we are now not certain of his position. That has been his track record on the matter.

The Minister indicated that Fianna Fáil was of the view that we should not honour a commitment in respect of carryover from a previous rural development programme. That is not the core of what we have been saying; rather, we have been saying the Minister should honour his commitments in respect of the programme, including the commitment of €1.4 billion for GLAS. We are saying he should honour no more than his own promises, instead of trying to cloud the position in terms of what was in place previously. Previously, he committed to providing €1.4 billion for GLAS, but he is now saying that figure included a transitional payment from the REPS and the AEOS.

On the spend under GLAS, the Minister referenced that the former Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, had indicated in a press release that there would 50,000 participants in the scheme and made the point that in not referencing that there were 50,000 participants I was only giving half the story. In other words, I was referring to the commitment to provide €1.4 billion but not to the 50,000 participants. The Minister's point is that because the scheme has been taken up by 50,000 participants the Government has fulfilled its commitments. I never said there would not be 50,000 participants. I acknowledge that figure has been achieved. I was focusing on the commitment given by the then Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, that there would be €1.4 billion specifically for GLAS within the period of the rural development programme from 2014 to 2020. The Minister is now saying the €5,000 per participant figure was the maximum payment and that it was never intended that it would be an average sum. That was not the position of the former Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney. His position was that that he expected it to be the average figure.

I am not the first person to raise this as an issue or fight this battle. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív was very much to the fore in highlighting that the Government was not following through on its promises. At Question Time in the Dáil, when he and the then Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, were debating whether the Government's funding commitments would be followed through, Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the then Minister whether the average figure of €5,000 would be achieed and whether the full spending commitment would be met. In response, the then Minister said the maximum payments under GLAS and GLAS+ would be €5,000 and €7,000, respectively. It was always expected that the average payment would be close to the maximum figure of €5,000 because the majority of farmers would be eligible to draw down the full amount. It should be borne in mind that some would be receiving €7,000 under GLAS+. The then Minister went on to say that, on the basis of the number of entrants up to that point, he had no doubt that GLAS would succeed in attracting 50,000 applicants over the lifetime of the scheme and that it was projected that expenditure of about €250 million per year would be required when the full 50,000 applicants were participating in the scheme. That gives an average figure of €5,000. That is what the former Minister said. The Minister, Deputy Michael Creed, is now backtracking and saying the sum of €1.4 billion announced by the former Minister for GLAS always included the figure of €400 million and that the Government was always clear on this. The Minister was never clear on it. It was always hidden. In fact, it was made clear that €1.4 billion was being provided for GLAS. It has now been clarified that that is not what was being delivered and that farmers were sold a fib at the time.

On the next rural development scheme, can the Minister outline the projected spend on GLAS in 2021 and 2022? As we already know the number of participants in GLAS and how much they are being paid, the Minister need only make a simple calculation to provide the committee with the projected spend in those years. He referenced a spend of €4 billion under the current rural development programme. When one takes from that figure the €600 million for the transitional arrangement under the previous rural development programme, the figure for the 2014-20 rural development programme amounts to only €3.23 billion. Will the €104 million the Minister referenced as being the overspend be taken from the allocation for the next rural development programme because included in the €104 million is the additional €25 million of national financing for the area of natural constraints scheme. There is also the additional €100 million of national financing for the sheep welfare scheme. The Minister sold these increases in funding to farmers as Exchequer payments over and above what was being provided for in the rural development programme, yet he is saying today that the overspend of €104 million under the current programme will be part of a transitional arrangement and clawed back under the next rural development programme.