Vol. 642 No. 2
6 Deputy Paul Kehoe asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the main agenda matters for the Council of the European Union, Agriculture and Fisheries meeting on 26 and 27 November 2007 that are of concern to Ireland; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [30133/07]
The provisional agenda for the next meeting of the Council of Agriculture and Fisheries Ministers, scheduled for 26 and 27 November, indicates that it will deal with both agriculture and fisheries matters. As regards agriculture, the Commission will present its communication to the Council and the European Parliament on preparing for the health check of the CAP reform. It will also present its proposals on reform of the support system for cotton and suspension of import duties in the cereals sector. A proposal for a regulation on the definition, description, presentation and labelling of spirit drinks will be put to the Council for adoption. A significant proportion of the Council will be taken up with trilateral meetings on the proposed reform of the common organisation of the wine market.
In so far as the fisheries sector is concerned, political agreement will be sought on a proposal to establish a multi-annual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean. In addition, the Commission will provide information to the Council on several issues, namely, the EC-Norway annual consultations for 2008, the proposed action plan for simplifying and improving the Common Fisheries Policy and the proposed strategy and related proposals for the Community to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.
It goes without saying that all matters discussed at the Council are of concern to Ireland. As preparations for the Council are continuing in the Council working groups, COREPER and the special committee on agriculture, the nature of discussions in the Council and the issues of particular concern to me may change depending on the outcome of negotiations at official level.
At this point, I have a particular interest in hearing the Commission's presentation of its communication on preparing for the health check of the CAP. The Council meeting will be the first opportunity for the Commission to present its paper to Ministers, which was published earlier this week. My view is that the main focus of this health check should be on simplification and policy stability and I note the assurances already given by the Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Ms Fischer Boel, that further fundamental reform of the CAP is not envisaged at this point. I will convey these views to the Council and I am looking forward to participating in detailed discussions on this dossier in the coming months.
I cannot understand what the Minister means when she refers to proposals for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the definition, description, presentation and labelling of spirit drinks. Anyone who drinks in this country or anywhere in the world is aware of alcohol content because it is printed on the label of every bottle sold. Any wine with an alcohol content of less than 14% is not worth drinking because it is only paint stripper. There is no need to label spirit drinks.
Will the Minister indicate how many European countries have engaged in the decommissioning plan? As far as I can tell, the only country to have done so is Ireland. She will want to have the relevant information when she goes to Brussels.
The main agenda matter for the meeting is wine reform which, although not particularly consequential to us, will have significant implications for EU wine growers.
With climate change, it will become important to us.
The first paper on the health check is very important to us. The Deputy will be surprised at the difficulties that have arisen in terms of labelling spirit drinks and the implications it could have on our production. A number of new member states were insistent that the word "vodka" could not be used in Ireland, which was traditionally the practice. Although these matters have implications for Ireland, this specific issue has been resolved.
On the CAP health check, on the Order of Business yesterday I asked for a debate on these issues on the basis that they will be subject to the co-decision procedure. While it is a legislative proposal and does not specifically relate to the House, it has major potential implications, both positive and negative, for our agriculture sector and the rural economy. Will the Minister consider arranging a full debate on this issue, notwithstanding that it will also be addressed in the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? The importance of this issue warrants a debate.
I concur with the Deputy that a debate would be fruitful, whether in the Chamber or the committee system, as I would welcome an opportunity to hear the views of Members. The Department is establishing a consultative group of stakeholders to advise me on the health check. We also have a specific one on milk quotas. I am sure we could raise the matter with the Whips. Once we have the Commission's proposals, legislation will be proposed in early spring with a view to completing the process at the end of 2008.
I have already raised the issue with my party Whip who indicated such a debate would be unlikely.
The Deputy, bolstered by the commitment given on record by the Minister, should be able to raise the issue with his party Whip again.
Has the Minister prepared her views on genetically modified organisms for the after-dinner discussion?
It is a lunch rather than an after-dinner discussion and will be attended by a restricted group.
That is not the point. Has the Minister prepared her views?
That process is not complete. I must have further discussions with Members in preparing my speaking notes. As the Deputy will be aware, these are private views and the discussion at lunch will also be private.
With regard to the strategy to prevent——
It is smoke and daggers, Minister.
Is that what it is called?
Allow Deputy Sheahan to continue without interruption, please.
——deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, the Minister has much work to do. I have met fishing groups around the country and it is clear the Irish fishing fleet is the most regulated in Europe. Our European counterparts who are plundering our waters——
The Deputy should ask a question.
Will the Minister assure that Ireland will, to use her word, have "equivalence" regarding the strategy to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing? I hope she will have a strong input into the strategy.
As the Deputy is aware, the competent authority will be my Minister of State. It is more the pity that so few questions were tabled on fishing but perhaps this is a matter for consideration in future. The Deputy is correct that a strategy is being prepared and the Minister of State has been part of that process, having met representatives of other member states on a number of occasions. The issue at stake is equivalence and the rules and regulations imposed on Irish fishermen should be imposed in a similar fashion on fishermen in other member states. It is unfortunate that this has not been the case to date.
7 Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if her attention has been drawn to a recent Bord Bia report in which it is stated that 29% of respondents to a survey indicated that they source local food from local farmers’ markets; her views on the need to ensure local producers will be encouraged to grow their market locally; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [30077/07]
I thank Deputy Sherlock for attending the local food conference held in Mullingar last week. The Government is committed to supporting local and regional food and measures in this area are contained in both Towards 2016 and my Department's Agri-Vision 2015 action plan. Bord Bia, which operates under the aegis of my Department, has worked closely with other State and local agencies to exploit the growing opportunities for markets, providing a guide to farmers' markets, advice and mentoring assistance.
Raising awareness of local food is crucial for many reasons, including lower energy demand, an issue discussed during the earlier debate on climate change and energy security, food safety and freshness issues, market potential and impacts of climate change. In this regard, my Department and Bord Bia held a series of regional food fora throughout the country from late 2005 to early 2007. The aim was to increase awareness of emerging market opportunities and encourage best practice in developing regional and local excellence in food. The events were attended by producers, relevant State agencies and Departments with a remit in this area.
As a follow up to the successful regional fora, my Department and Bord Bia recently held a national conference in Mullingar on the topic of local food. This was the first national conference to be organised on this topic and almost 300 people attended, representing producers, retailers, consumers and agencies. The aim of the conference was to raise awareness and understanding of local food as defined by the consumer, highlight the benefits to producers, retailers and the consumer and offer practical information and advice to those wishing to sell in their local areas.
The research to which the question refers was undertaken by Bord Bia and included both qualitative and quantitative research into consumer attitudes to local food. The research was presented at the national conference on local food and will prove useful for producers wishing to serve the local market. It will provide local producers with an insight into consumer behaviour regarding local produce. To assist producers wishing to serve their local markets Bord Bia has also produced a guide entitled Selling Through Farmers' Markets, Farm Shops and Box Schemes in Ireland.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
This guide, the first of its kind, provides practical and in-depth advice for small food producers to maximise the potential from these routes to market.
In addition, Bord Bia recently launched Bord Bia Vantage — a centre of excellence for small business, which has at its core a website. This is the first website to provide comprehensive information specifically designed for small food businesses to help them grow their business and build sales. The vantage model is designed to assist businesses at all stages of development from those starting up who require general advice to those requiring a more focused high impact sales and business development programme.
I note the Minister of State was in Germany last month, Mullingar last week and Wexford this week and will, I understand, travel to Rome next week.
This week.
He is increasing his carbon footprint.
I tried to take a train to Wexford but it would have left me there for just half an hour.
Perhaps the Minister will take a boat to Rome. I thank him for his response. With 29% of respondents in a survey indicating a willingness to purchase local food, it is clear that farmers' markets have scope to tap this market. However, given that most people will shop at one of the multiples, it is necessary to target these food retailers. While the work being done by Bord Bia is without equal, one of the issues to arise from the conference held last week was the need to build a relationship between Bord Bia and the larger multiples. I ask the Minister of State to be cognisant of this when formulating Government policy.
I am not, as the Deputy may have implied, always on the road. I met representatives of all the multiples as soon as I took office, recognising the need to secure access to market for local producers. We have a great deal of work to do to deliver the outcomes Deputy Sherlock and I would like in this regard. As I indicated in Mullingar, notwithstanding the research referred to in the question, one of the difficulties is that the word "local" in this context is not legally defined and many people are not as local as they claim to be. This confuses the issue.
I will recommend that produce features a harvest date to assist consumers. For example, if a person finds broccoli from north County Dublin beside broccoli from California, it will be obvious from the harvest date that the product from my constituency will be fresher than that from the United States. We need to develop this and other areas to ensure real communication takes place on what "local" means, as confusion reigns on this issue. With 93% of respondents to the survey indicating a desire to buy local produce to support the local economy, it is important we avoid disappointing members of the public. To this end, we must ensure the word "local" means local.
8 Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the steps she is taking to increase the age threshold for BSE testing; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [29906/07]
It is important, in the first instance, to emphasise that I have never had discretion to raise the age thresholds for BSE testing as these are fixed at EU level. I have, however, been a constant advocate of change and have taken and continue to take every opportunity to impress upon Commissioner Kyprianou the overwhelming case I believe exists to raise the age limits. My officials have also taken similar opportunities to press the case for change.
My contention that the age limits should be raised is supported by any analysis of the existing surveillance programme. In 2006, more than 10 million tests, of which 8.5 million were in healthy slaughtered animals, were carried out throughout the EU with just 285 or 0.003% positive cases detected, of which 62 were in healthy slaughtered animals. Since 2001 some 4.7 million tests have been carried out in Ireland. As the House will be aware, the number of cases being identified here has fallen dramatically since 2001, when there were 333. This compares with 41 last year and 20 to date this year. The existing requirement that all bovines over 30 months of age slaughtered for human consumption must be tested, with all casualty animals over 24 months and all fallen stock over 24 months, is provided for under Regulation (EC) 999/2001.
In recent months the European Commission has proposed changes to the existing testing regime, the most recent of which were proposed at a meeting of chief veterinary officers in October. They were since discussed at a meeting of the TSE working group in Brussels earlier this month. The proposals now tabled by the Commission represent a vindication of my efforts in the past three years. I look forward with optimism to a successful conclusion to the current discussions.
The current options in respect of healthy slaughtered animals are to test all cattle aged over 42 months; to test all cattle born before 1 January 2002 and 50% of those born since and aged over 42 months; or to test all animals born before 1 January 2004 and none of those born since. It is also proposed, under each option, that, in respect of emergency slaughtered cattle and fallen stock, all cattle over 36 months would be BSE tested.
I thank the Minister for her long reply. However, all farmers want to know is when this unjustified charge and their difficulties with selling cattle on date will be removed. These are the issues at stake. The price of animals is being downgraded without justification, simply because they are over a certain age. The meat goes through the same process, but there has been no change, despite the fact they have been seeking it for years. When will the Minister succeed in getting it? When will she make the case that farmers, especially those involved in the beef sector, are under severe pressure? They do not need factories to avail of any excuse against them. Will the Minister give us the date and time for when the problem will be solved once and for all?
I have continued to pursue this issue vigorously, but a number of member states do not wish this to happen. The decision that will be made will apply EU-wide. In that regard, the paper was received and discussed in October. I had hoped and expected that this would be introduced at the end of this year——
We were promised before the general election it would be.
Unfortunately, many of my EU counterparts will not agree. We now have three proposals. I have put forward our view as to what we wish to have and this is being pursued vigorously by me and my veterinary staff. I have spoken to the Commissioner to expedite the matter and will continue to keep the pressure on him. While I would love to be able to give a definite date, I cannot do so. However, I will do everything I can to expedite a decision. We will be as forthcoming as possible on the matter. I agree wholeheartedly with the Deputy, there is no health reason that these tests should be carried out now.
In view of the significance of this issue to farmers, given the previous issue relating to the Food and Veterinary Office report and in the light of the forthcoming referendum, farmers must be convinced that the European Union can deliver for them. Given the level of apathy and hostility in the farming community to the treaty, as evaluated by recent opinion polls, does the Minister believe it is imperative that between now and the holding of the referendum in early 2008 we convince farmers that the Union can deliver for them and that it will not hinder them, put them out of business or take money from their pockets? It is important we get this issue across to Commissioner Kyprianou and President Barroso. At a political level, we need to forge alliances in Europe that will be seen to deliver for us. I appreciate what the Minister says, that she can only advocate but cannot make the change. Efficient advocacy works by building relationships with other like-minded states. Ireland is the only state that will have to put the Lisbon treaty to the people and we will need assistance at a political level to have it delivered.
I have formed many political alliances around the table and used them extensively. They are not just in the agriculture area, but also in the fisheries area. We have good political alliances and continue to hold bilateral discussions. I will meet the forthcoming Presidency in Slovenia on Tuesday and Wednesday to discuss these issues and did the same in previous presentations and preparations.
I agree that in some instances farmers do not see the European Union as a support mechanism, but as a hindrance. However, we must not forget that the Union continues to provide €1.3 billion through the single farm payment, for example. I have continued to pursue the issues at stake vigorously. As the Deputy knows, when it comes to public health, change can be complicated and difficult on the basis of what happened a number of years ago in other member states. There is a reluctance to move forward and press ahead. Perhaps some member states wish to be less progressive than us.
As I said, I have given an assurance to farming organisations that we will continue to press vigorously on the issue, as have farming organisations within the European Union.
9 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the interim measures she proposes to deal with those people whose farm improvement scheme applications have been suspended, which will result in their inability to comply with either REP scheme conditions or the nitrates directive. [30121/07]
The farm improvement scheme was launched by my Department in July with funding of €79 million as agreed under the partnership agreement, Towards 2016. I announced the suspension of the scheme on 31 October, as applications received thereunder had reached this level of funding. I had made it clear at the time of the introduction of the scheme that it would be closed when the financial ceiling had been reached. This was also explicitly provided for in the terms and conditions of the scheme. The applications received under the scheme up to 31 October will be processed by my Department up to the level of funding available. I have no plans to reopen the scheme to further applications prior to the review in 2008 of Towards 2016 as provided for in that agreement.
The revised farm waste management scheme which was introduced by my Department in March 2006, rather than the farm improvement scheme, was the principal measure designed to assist farmers to meet their obligations under the nitrates directive. A standard grant rate of 60%, 70% in the four zone C counties, is available to farmers who complete works under that scheme. Some 48,580 applications were received from farmers under the scheme and, to date, almost 35,000 approvals have been issued by my Department to farmers to commence work which work must be completed and supporting documentation submitted by 31 December 2008.
Does the Minister accept that some of those who signed up for the REP scheme cannot complete their works and that not all of them will be covered under the farm waste management scheme? There are two choices available to them, one of which is to defer their REP scheme entry. If in year one, most have to comply with their housing need target. Otherwise, they will have to proceed without the grant and not to the standard preferred. Some feel as if there is a gun to their heads. I am aware of individuals who submitted valid stamped applications one week before 31 October, but who were told they would be excluded. When their application was receipted and accepted, they presumed it was valid and felt they were in the comfort zone, even after the Minister had announced she was closing the scheme. Subsequently, they have heard their applications may not be not accepted.
To clarify, I was given €79 million and it was agreed that the existing farm waste management scheme was to have priority to deal with the issue of nitrates. It was, without shadow of a doubt, one of the best schemes ever introduced, besides being flexible and catering for farmers with fewer than 20 livestock units to farmers with investments of over €120,000. It was agreed by both politicians and farmers that we had to deal with the nitrates issue and that this was the most important scheme.
With regard to those farmers who had applications under the farm improvement scheme submitted and stamped before the end of October, they are within the scheme. I hope, once we get through all the applications and ascertain their bona fides — I heard some farmers threw in applications just because they heard the scheme was going to close, whereas others may have been under greater pressure to address various issues — we will be able to provide greater clarity for those applications submitted between 21 and 31 October. Anybody who is within the system and has been accepted and whose application has been stamped will be reviewed but we have await the financial implications and then look at the priorities.
Does the Minister have a timeframe?
Yes, the beginning of next year.
I am not satisfied with that answer because this was a demand-led scheme and was open to all comers. If somebody gets an application in on time it is as valid as any other application. I do not see why the Minister can discriminate against those people who applied within those timeframes but, because the budget line is suddenly cut, are not to be considered. I ask the Minister to review the decision on the basis that if we encounter serious changes in agriculture into the future then it will be a matter for farmers to improve their holdings and their facilities. This is a wonderful scheme in terms of what it seeks to achieve but there should be more flexibility on the part of the Government to allow at least those people who got in before the cut-off to be considered. The word "review" is a very broad term. It is not a concrete term and it gives no solace to those farmers who applied on time.
There was agreement in the partnership talks that the amount would be €79 million. I cannot exceed that €79 million. That is all the money that is available. Given the economic circumstances my priority has to be delivery, in a short period, of the farm waste management scheme.
In regard to the people who had made an application which was stamped by the Department we do not know yet whether they are valid because they have to be examined up to 30 October. I would hope to have adequate resources to look after those. At this moment in time I await the information from all the local offices as to my liabilities. Then and only then can I look at what the real priorities should be in a more targeted approach under that scheme. We will do our utmost to facilitate people if we can at all.
I was just reading from a text message I have here arising from my membership of the IFA. The message states that IFA never agreed to any upper limit. That is the message it sent out to all its farmer members.
The IFA can produce all the money.
This is a problem for many farmers and one they did not expect. What can I tell a young farmer in his 20s, whose father dropped dead at 50 years of age, for whom it took some time to get his application in for an urgent dairy grant? How will he survive in the difficult situation in which he finds himself?
As the Deputy knows, taking individual cases to the floor of the House is not appropriate.
Does it make the Minister feel uncomfortable?
It does not make me feel uncomfortable. Perhaps less of the Deputy's smart alec comments about what I have done in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food——
It is all about individual farmers. The Minister should not forget that.
If the Minister would confine herself to addressing the Chair and if Deputies would allow the Minister to answer the questions posed we could proceed on that basis.
At this moment in time the scheme is closed. The amount of money available is not finite, it is €79 million. That is all the money that was made available under the farm improvement scheme.
It was marketed up to 2013.
I would rather not make political points because I know Deputy Crawford is genuine in supporting a particular family. If there are additional resources available when the Department looks at priorities, issues such as that would have to be given priority. I remind members of the Fine Gael Party——
Here we go again, the party political broadcast.
——that it found itself in that situation heretofore on the basis that it did not have adequate resources available.
It was marketed to run from 2007 to 2013.
I have an agreement for the amount of resources available. More than 6,000 applications arrived in the Department in one week.
The Minister needs a history lesson.
Perhaps we should have looked at the scheme in a more exemplary way where those in most need would be facilitated.
So the farmer——
10 Deputy Michael D. Higgins asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the planned initiatives to promote organic food production and farmers’ markets; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [30085/07]
The programme for Government has set a target of increasing the amount of utilisable agricultural land area under organic production from its current rate of less than 1% to 5% by 2012. Even though this is a challenging target I believe it is attainable.
My Department offers substantial incentives to promote the growth of the sector. The new organic farming scheme, introduced under the rural development programme for the period from 2007 to 2013, is aimed at encouraging producers to respond to the market demand for organic food. Rates of payment under the scheme are some 17% higher than comparable payments under the previous rural environment protection scheme, REPS 3. One significant change this time around is that we are allowing organic producers to obtain organic support payments without having to join REPS. This should encourage small-scale horticultural producers to convert to organic production, and also conventional tillage producers to convert part or even all of their holdings. As a further incentive to encourage non-REPS farmers solely involved in tillage production to convert to organic farming, there is an additional payment of €240 per hectare available in the in-conversion period, up to a maximum of 40 hectares, provided they grow green cover crops.
As well as payments to farmers, my Department also offers significant development grants both to farmers and to processors under the schemes of grant aid for the development of the organic sector. The current schemes were launched last June and they provide grant aid for investments by farmers and processors in equipment and facilities. The schemes provide grant aid of 40% of the cost up to a maximum grant of €60,000 in the case of on-farm investments and €500,000 for investments off-farm.
I am pleased to note that Teagasc has appointed an additional three specialist organic advisers to strengthen its advisory role. This development, allied to the expanding demonstration farm programme, should further facilitate producers considering the organic option.
Expansion at production level cannot happen in isolation. It needs a market to support it. The most recent initiative in this regard is the three-year organic marketing plan 2006-09, produced by Bord Bia in consultation with the organic market development group. The objective of the plan is to develop the organic sector in Ireland for existing suppliers and new entrants.
In the context of the EU CAP health check, will any measures be undertaken to assist organic farmers in Ireland?
It is probably too early to say exactly what measures in the health check can be brought to bear in addition to what I have just outlined. The marketing of organic food is currently the area in which we have to drive improvements because the incentives, if one is taking to the organic certification bodies, are quite solid and are appreciated. It comes down to ensuring that gaps are filled when it comes to shortcomings in marketing. For example, Flahavans are looking for organic cereal producers in Ireland to meet their need. There are areas that have to be developed. In the course of my travels, referred to earlier, in Italy, Austria and Germany——
My God——
——it was clear that the catering sectors in schools, hospitals and the nursing homes in those countries have developed direct market opportunities for organic producers. For example, in Rome 150,000 organic school meals are provided every day. That is a huge marketing opportunity which we need to develop here.
Does the Minister of State accept that farmers' markets are not exclusively organic? What steps does he propose to take to ensure that products fraudulently presented as organic are tackled? Recent evidence shows that a product was imported and repackaged and presented as organic when it was not.
Hear, hear.
This has the capacity to undermine the credibility of local farmers' markets.
That is a very serious point that has been raised by the Deputy. When I came into the Department I asked about this matter and I was told that a dedicated official was going around the country to examine, inspect and ensure that what was being sold as certified organic, actually legally, was certified organic. I felt that person was being run off his or her feet.
Give them a bicycle.
Thankfully, I was able to ensure that the person was matched by another person to increase the capacity for inspection. I will reconsider the matter to ascertain how the work is progressing. At present we are evaluating whether it is possible to do all this with the two people involved. There has been an increase in the powers of those two individuals as the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, introduced the statutory instrument which provides increased powers to inspectors to confiscate produce and ensure it is inspected. Those powers were not previously in place, which allowed certain lax practices to take hold.
I would of course agree that not all farmers' markets are organic. Any that falsely claim to be organic are in breach of the law. It is important that consumers, if they are buying products which are said to be organic, ask for the certification which they are entitled to see to reassure themselves.
11 Deputy Joan Burton asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the investment aid paid to mushroom growers under the scheme of investment aid for the development of commercial horticulture since the scheme started, with a breakdown by county; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [30078/07]
Under the National Development Plan 2000-06, my Department operated a grant aid scheme for the development of commercial horticulture including the mushroom sector. Over the period 2000-06 a total of €5.01 million was paid to 190 mushroom growers. The following schedule shows the breakdown per county to mushroom growers for the period of the National Development Plan 2000-06.
|
County |
No of Applicants |
Total Grant Aid Paid |
|
€ |
||
|
Carlow |
5 |
134,853 |
|
Cavan |
45 |
1,019,515 |
|
Clare |
1 |
16,399 |
|
Cork |
1 |
9,939 |
|
Donegal |
13 |
198,212 |
|
Dublin |
3 |
68,969 |
|
Galway |
4 |
23,338 |
|
Kildare |
9 |
163,832 |
|
Kilkenny |
1 |
7,535 |
|
Laois |
1 |
5,777 |
|
Leitrim |
3 |
67,089 |
|
Longford |
2 |
26,665 |
|
Louth |
1 |
9,999 |
|
Mayo |
15 |
733,683 |
|
Meath |
4 |
252,663 |
|
Monaghan |
34 |
1,251,240 |
|
Offaly |
2 |
8,399 |
|
Roscommon |
2 |
134,854 |
|
Sligo |
1 |
11,852 |
|
Tipperary |
23 |
557,644 |
|
Waterford |
1 |
54,407 |
|
Westmeath |
9 |
78,676 |
|
Wexford |
7 |
62,154 |
|
Wicklow |
3 |
112,721 |
|
Total |
190 |
5,010,415 |
It is clear there is a considerable difference between counties. Deputy Crawford's area of Cavan-Monaghan received a great deal, whereas my area and that of Deputy Sherlock received much less. The grant aid is not consistent across all counties.
The European Commission has recently approved, under the State aid guidelines, the new NDP scheme of investment aid for the development of the commercial horticulture sector and applications are awaited at present. The closing date for receipt of applications under this scheme is 30 November 2007.
When funding of this nature is allocated to growers, is the labour inspectorate involved in inspecting facilities where the potential for abuse of labour standards exists? Given that moneys are expended by the taxpayer and it has been documented that exploitation has taken place within this industry, is there interdepartmental co-operation on the issue of exploitation of labour in the sector?
I have been very concerned by reports regarding abuse of labour law. I am also conscious of increasing labour and energy costs in the sector which have brought pressure but which have been somewhat alleviated by the influx of non-nationals into the sector. This has meant we need to be extremely vigilant to ensure the competitive nature of the sector is not pursued at the expense of anybody in a vulnerable position in our country.
With this in mind, I met on a number of occasions the Minister of State, Deputy Billy Kelleher, who has responsibility for labour law, and with whom I plan to meet again. I am hopeful I will be in a position to report progress and that we will have a system in place whereby there is not just an informal relationship but strong and clear lines of communication so that nobody who is in breach of any labour law will be in receipt of State aid.
I have a procedural question. On a number of occasions, the time for questions has been changed. While we are happy to facilitate that process, I respectfully ask that in future we should keep to a more constant timeframe.
I apologise to Members. Unfortunately, as the portfolio has increased, other issues have arisen. We will do our best. I greatly appreciate the Deputies' facilitation of the change.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
