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

I want to make a point in respect of the underspend, because it is important to understand this. It is deliberate and mischievous to present this as a disservice to farming. If anything, the contrary is the case. This is a deliberate misinterpretation of the budgetary process. In the late summer every year, we begin an engagement with the Department of Finance. We completely understand what our potential liabilities are, under the targeted agriculture modernisation scheme, TAMS, the green, low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, the ANC scheme, or any of measures. As they are liabilities which are due, we have to ensure that in the event of those approved applicants coming forward for payment, the Department has sufficient money in the bank to pay them. Senator Daly and his colleagues would be the first to jump up and down in this House, as it were, if somebody attempted to draw down an authorised payment and was not paid because the Department did not have the money because it did not ask for enough. As such, on an annual basis we ask what our full contingent liabilities will be.

We have discussed GLAS. There are actions which individuals approved under GLAS have to undertake, pertaining to with rare breeds, nutrient management plans, commonage management plans, etc. We anticipate in good faith that all of those compliance issues will be adhered to by all applicants. However, if they do not comply by the end of the year, it means that we have provisioned for their entitlements, though the payment may not come through until 2018. Senator Daly is disingenuously suggesting that because we are holding funds, we can, for example, pay a €200 suckler cow support. What he is prescribing is effectively the principle of robbing Peter to pay Paul.