Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegates for their presentation which contains many summary statistics which can hide individual difficulties. The departmental officials spoke first about the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, because it is the one most farmers have had issues and problems with. The Department has acknowledged that there have been difficulties in the past few months and payments to farmers have been slow. Granted, they are in a minority, but they are individual families who have bills to meet and payments to make and find it difficult when they cannot receive their payments. Some farmers have still not received their GLAS payments and are being told that it is not their fault, that the fault is on the side of the Department and that the issue has not been ironed out because there are various problems with information technology, IT, systems or whatever else. We hear this all of the time and farmers keep coming back to us. I have heard the Department tell them that and they are not making it up. It is the reality and I am not sure how it can be dealt with. Perhaps there are too many delivery models of IT systems, not one overall system. I do not know what the problem is, but it needs to be addressed.

It was envisaged that 50,000 farmers would receive a maximum payment of €5,000 per farmer under GLAS, but that has not been the outcome. The big issue in politics is setting out one's intentions and trying to get the outcome to match it. We acknowledge that it is not always easy to do that, but at the same time we are left with a certain underspend under GLAS because farmers will not receive the amount of money they expected to receive. I acknowledge that there is an overlap with the rural environmental protection scheme, REPS, and the agri-environment options scheme, AEOS. There are approximately 2,000 farmers still in the AEOS which will run out very soon and for a time they will be in no scheme. Can these programmes be extended for the short period until a new environmental scheme is put in place? They have finished the AEOS, cannot enter the REPS or GLAS and are stuck.

There have been problems with the beef data genomics scheme, but there are fewer farmers engaged in it than anticipated. When that happens, we expect a certain amount of money not to be spent. One of the questions asked in the document supplied to us by the Department is whether money can be reallocated between schemes and the answer is yes. It takes thinking, but it can be reallocated. It needs to be because there are farmers who are under pressure under many of the schemes. There will be money left over, as Deputy Charlie McConalogue and others said, and we need to find a way to deal with the matter.

The suckler cow sector, about which we are talking, is the one under most pressure. The Minister will acknowledge that the recent report from Teagasc on farm incomes showed that they were going up, but it was all in the dairy sector. Suckler cow and sheep farmers continue to be under the most pressure and are the ones who depend most on the schemes. The beef data genomics scheme would benefit greatly from being married to some element of a suckler cow scheme to ensure we could do something to enhance quality. The beef data genomics scheme aims to enhance the quality of calves through breeding, but that can also be done through husbandry.

It was said a certain amount of money would be spent under the sheep welfare scheme, but the amount will fall short by approximately €20 million. We heard two presentations on tagging which is the way forward and has to happen. Everyone understands this and the majority of sheep farmers are happy enough with it. They are under so much financial pressure that it is another cost, unless they can see some way to be compensated or assisted in meeting it. The Department has stated it will give €50 per farmer for the first year of the scheme. If it could be added to the sheep welfare scheme, the farmer could receive a little more. It would help to give farmers security. The suckler cow and sheep sectors need a statement from the Department and the Government that they believe in and want to support them. There is an opportunity there to do so.

The Leader programme was mentioned at the very end of the presentation. Some €250 million goes through that programme. I have had this out with the Minister, Deputy Ring. I believe a tiny proportion of that funding has been spent to date. To be frank, these low numbers arise from the reorganisation. It was brought to county councils and every bottle washer that could be found in the country was given a job that had something to do with the Leader programme. It ended up meaning nobody can get money from it. There are community projects all over the country that are frustrated in this regard. It is time to go back and look at this again. The old model delivered very well for communities around the country. People could find individual cases with problems but they were very much in the minority compared with the excellent job done. We can compare the way Leader funding was delivered to communities and the way they benefitted from that with the current state of the programme, which is a complete mess. I appeal to the Minister to speak to the Minister for Rural and Community Development, Deputy Ring, about this and go back to the drawing board. They should work out a scheme to ensure the next round of funding from Leader is not delivered in the same absolutely stupid way.

We can have all the lovely ideas in the world but if they do not work, somebody must stand up and say so. Leader does not work. I travel around the country to speak to people in various county development companies and they say it is not working for them. There are too many rules and regulations and too many people have to look over everything. It ends with nobody getting any money from a programme that is simply not working. That should be acknowledged. We are not interested in beating up or blaming anybody but finding a solution. The Leader programme has brought many benefits to communities in the past but the current programme has brought only frustration. That should be acknowledged and we must ensure it works in future.