Éamon Ó Cuív on SCEP rule tying farmers to Borbilla QA

My question is quite simple as to why all farmers in the SCEP scheme have to also be in the Borbilla scheme and the Borbilla scheme is quite a bureaucratic scheme. I was wondering what the logic behind this is and I think that this has a knock-on effect on participation in the SCEP scheme. Thanks, Deputy Cueve, and you're very much on the button in relation to a question that's being asked right across the country in relation to the new suckler carbon efficiency programme, the new suckler scheme replacing the suckler welfare one before. And listen, this was a decision that was made in the strategic interest of improving our suckler and our beef herd and particularly the value of the animals that we're selling and marketing abroad. Origin Green and the Borbilla quality assurance programme was initiated back in 2011. It was way ahead of its time back then, long before the sustainability discussion became so much part of the mainstream and it's really put us in a very, very strong position internationally in terms of the offering we have where we can go abroad, it's Origin Green approved, we're able to get ahead, not just because of the quality of our product, but also because of the assurances we can give around how it's produced. We can get ahead and get onto the shelves ahead of other competing countries because of what we have there. And we need to continue to build on that. And in relation to the decision to bring significant extra national funds to this scheme, which meant that the payments now under the new suckler cow scheme will be €150 per cow for the first 23 compared to €90 for the first 10. Again, bringing those extra national funds to the table, we made the strategic decision that we would make a requirement of participating in the scheme to the board be a quality assured because overall it is also going to enhance the value of the suckler product whenever it's sold abroad and whenever we bring it onto shelves. And also deepen the amount of quality assured farms we have in the country because at the moment, if it's on a quality assured farm for the last 90 days, it qualifies as quality assured. But we have to broaden the scheme as we go forward to make sure we stay ahead of other competing nations and to make sure we stay on the shelves ahead of other countries. And that means it needs to be more than just the final 90 days. We need to try and ensure that more suckler farmers are also quality assured as well. So that's why the decision was taken. Mr. Garmark, please. Mr. Garmark. Mr. Garmark, does your call for you? Mr. Garmark. Mr. Garmark, if the actual effect of the scheme is that a huge number of small farmers don't participate in it and therefore are in quality assured, is it defeating itself with an over-suffered amount of bureaucracy? Obviously, every scheme has to have terms and conditions. But my understanding is that the Barbia bureaucracy is the one that is causing the problem, not the bureaucracy of the scheme itself that aims to improve the suckler cow herd and the suckler cow production. And therefore, what I was wondering is, could a derogation be given for the small herd owners? Can you also outline to me what premium does a farmer get in the factory if he has Barbia certification? Are they getting a significant premium? So there are really two parts of the question. One is the point you pointed out that it is only in the last 90 days at the moment that it counts. And we have brought this in from birth. So this is literally deterring, and we will come to this in question nine. This is deterring the vast majority of smaller farmers from taking part in the scheme at all. Go ahead, Mark. I'm tired. You know, it has been a challenge, Deputy Huyve, to get more participation in quality assurance. It has come a long way, but we need to try and have more farmers in it. And that is difficult to achieve. But it enhances our overall product. And it means that myself, Minister Hayden, are doing trade missions all the time abroad. Minister Hackett, from our organic point of view as well. And it is a massive calling card. It is what the customers that we are selling it to want to hear about. It is that origin green branding and that quality assurance which gives us a competitive advantage, an additional competitive advantage in relation to the customers we have. And it is increasingly so going to give us that competitive advantage. So it is important to actually have as much of our sector in it as possible. And it does strengthen the sector then overall. And I accept your point. It is harder, though, because the payment is made at the end, whenever the animal is slaughtered in relation to the quality assurance bonus, it is harder to see that where you are selling stores or where you are selling weanlings. It is not as tangible. But I have certainly been able to see it as Minister, how tangible it is in relation to the product that is being sold abroad. And the more value we can put in that, the more value there can be in the chain from CAF to the factory. I am certainly open to seeing how we can make that more tangible at different levels in the supply chain for weanlings or stores. I am open to that. But there is no doubt that a move like this is something which is going to strengthen the sector. But I do accept it is one which has been, you know, is challenging to communicate the rationale for it at times. I have asked if a huge number of farmers are not participating, because they are put off by the conditions of the scheme and the bureaucracy involved, and particularly the farmers who are on small herds on poorer land, who sell the cattle younger, are not participating because of the Borbea condition. Are we not losing to not the baby with the bathwater? In other words, could they not have a modified scheme, and then allow that the bigger herd owners would have, you will have to be in the Borbea, but they are more likely to be finishing the cattle? I do not think it is possible to have a halfway house in relation to quality assurance. We have one national quality assurance scheme and one national brand, and it is important that that is as strong as possible. What I would say is that I think lots of farmers are concerned about taking on the additional administration involved in quality assurance. The experience has been, though, for those that actually have made that move and made that jump, that actually it is not as onerous or as there isn't anything to fear there in the way that they would, the trepidation they might have in advance. And also what the feedback I have got from many farmers is that it is a good way of actually making sure you are in good shape for a Department of Agriculture inspection. For example, if you are picked randomly for a Department of Agriculture inspection, because if you are inspected from an agriculture point of view and something is amiss, then you are potentially in line for a penalty. Whereas when you are working with your board, be a quality assurance officer, you will get advice to make sure that you are fully, fully compliant and to work with you to make sure that that is the case. And when you are quality assured, then you can be assured that you have everything the way it needs to be. So it can be useful in that regard. So, listen, I understand the point. I have heard it in many parts across the country over the last while. But that is the rationalist decision and the approach, Deputy O'Keefe. Board on public. Board on the overtime. Board on public. Board on policy. Board on state bat 씨RI. Board on public. Board on public. Board on public. Board on applicable. Board on public. Board on public. Board on public. Good that is a little bit more effective. 船拿 Feal running space office as everything. Board on public. Board on public. Board on public. Board on. Board on public.