Vol. 648 No. 1
6 Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the preventative measures she is considering to avert the spread of the bluetongue virus here; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [7072/08]
I beg the Chair's indulgence in replying to this question, if that is agreeable to the Deputies opposite, as there may be some important points to be made.
My Department's contingency arrangements to minimise the possible introduction of the bluetongue virus into the country are based on the existing EU legislation and an ongoing assessment of the risk to Ireland. Following confirmation of the detection of the virus in Northern Ireland in the past week, I have asked my officials to further assess the risk and, based on that assessment, I will introduce any such additional control measures that are considered appropriate.
In the meantime, I have taken the decision to trace and test for bluetongue any live cattle and sheep imported from Northern Ireland since 11 January 2008, other than those imported directly for slaughter. Furthermore, live animals imported for breeding or production from Northern Ireland will now be included in the routine post-importation testing programme, which is being applied to live imports from the Continent and Britain. My Department is also tracing all live animals imported from the Continent and the Britain since 1 November 2007 and all will be retested for bluetongue. I am satisfied, based on the Department's current assessment of the risk to Ireland, that this represents an appropriate and proportionate response to the recent developments in Northern Ireland, having regard to the legislative framework within which we must operate.
In terms of the Department's overall contingency arrangements, we have produced a comprehensive bluetongue contingency plan for Ireland. Information and advice leaflets on the disease were sent to every farmer in the country as well as specifically tailored advisory material as to all members of the veterinary profession. The Department also hosted an industry seminar on bluetongue with international speakers. In addition, the Department has a dedicated bluetongue website which is updated as appropriate and contains comprehensive information and advice on the disease, including full details of the clinical signs together with photographs. The Department's contingency arrangements are kept under constant review and revised as appropriate by reference to the developing disease situation or in the light of legal or other developments, particularly at EU level. In addition, we are also refining arrangements for delivery of a programme in the event that it becomes necessary to vaccinate here.
In this regard also, the Department has been working and continues to work very closely with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, DARD, in Northern Ireland in the development of an all-island approach and I have discussed the situation, both in Britain and in Northern Ireland, on a number of occasions with the Minister, Michelle Gildernew.
In terms of minimising the risk of the disease being introduced, up to 1 November 2007, the importation of susceptible animals from bluetongue restricted areas in Europe was banned. However, since then a Commission regulation allows for the possibility of movement of susceptible animals from bluetongue restricted areas under defined conditions within that regulation. Since the lifting of all remaining FMD-related measures, live imports are now allowed from Great Britain. Any such animals imported since the controls were modified will have been tested for bluetongue and will now be retested.
Ireland opposed and voted against the adoption of the regulation at the relevant EU meeting and we raised the matter subsequently with the Commission in writing. The cases in Northern Ireland reinforce my view that aspects of the trade rules currently applying should be amended and I will continue to seek appropriate amendments. I have instructed my chief veterinary officer, CVO, who is attending a CVO meeting in Brussels, to pursue this matter vigorously with the Commission and I will review the position following the outcome of that meeting tomorrow. In the meantime, I reiterate my Department's advice to those who may be considering importing animals to carefully assess the risks involved and, in particular, to avoid importing pregnant animals from bluetongue restricted areas for the present as this represents the biggest risk of the introduction of this disease. All live animals being imported from Europe, including Great Britain are subject to mandatory post-import testing for bluetongue and to date in excess of 1,700 tests have been carried out, all of which have been found negative.
On that last point, are there any proposals in the event of the risk levels increasing? Will quarantine measures be put in place, specifically if the importation of animals from risk areas is permitted? I assume the Minister means the UK, that is Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as regards post-FMD imports.
That is correct.
Is she confident as regards the control measures in place between her Department and DARD?
I have had two discussions today with the Minister. We had an all-Ireland approach on foot and mouth disease. That included Great Britain and Ireland, including Northern Ireland. All animals being brought in will have a post-import test. If they are coming for slaughter, they do not need a test. I have expressed a view to the effect that the present regulatory rules are inappropriate and the CVO, on my behalf, will raise that issue tomorrow. I am happy with the work that is taking place involving Minister Gildernew and me and our respective departmental services. However, I reiterate that in the advent of any change I shall not hesitate to introduce further measures, as appropriate.
If I understand the Minister correctly, there was retrospective testing since November 2007, but subsequently the Commission regulation allowed for importation from previously susceptible areas. To my mind, notwithstanding the level of co-operation with the Northern Ireland Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development, that implies the risk still exists — and if testing is occurring post-import, the disease might be detected. Is the Minister satisfied that every beast will be tested on importation to offset the risk and take into account the fact that the Commission regulation — notwithstanding Ireland's position — has gone against us?
It is susceptible animals as opposed to susceptible areas. The status of Northern Ireland is different since the disease is not there. Therefore the rules are different. If animals are being imported for breeding purposes a post-import test will be carried out and I am happy that the relevant provisions will be adhered to. All animals for export have to have a veterinary certificate. We will be including on that a post-import test to ensure the disease is not present.
Almost all Deputies have asked for a voluntary derogation on the importation of animals from those countries where the disease is present at the moment and I do not take issue with that. Equally, I agree with the Deputy as regards his concerns on the appropriateness of the regulation. That is why we vote against this and still have concerns in the matter, which we shall be raising again tomorrow.
In that context, is it worth establishing a national biosecurity committee? If the Minister is unhappy with the regulations, and particularly as regards breeding animals, I urge the her to consider quarantine measures in areas where the disease is present.
We have a disease control group in the Department which meets instantaneously if there are any changes. We shall be taking into consideration any measures that are necessary, based on the risks as they arise. At this moment the risk has not changed. We changed our view a number of days ago, and that is why I introduced the post-import certificate. In the advent of any changes arising, I shall not hesitate to take into consideration other measures that are needed.
7 Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food her views on whether changes need to be made to conditions governing the use of agricultural land in order to encourage the growing of energy crops. [35173/07]
Energy crops are defined under Article 88 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 as crops supplied essentially for the production of the following energy products — products considered bio-fuels; and electric and thermal energy produced from biomass. Under the single payment scheme, in order for an applicant to draw down full payment in respect of the payment entitlements held, he or she is required to have an "eligible hectare" to accompany each entitlement. In this context an eligible hectare is land that is used for an agricultural activity and includes land used to grow cereals, oilseeds, short rotation coppice, miscanthus sinensis, protein crops, sugar beet, maize, fodder beet, turnips, mangolds, kale, grass for silage or hay or grazing, and agricultural land that is in set-aside.
The land must be maintained in good agricultural and environmental condition. In the case of each hectare declared, the eligible area excludes any inaccessible areas and any areas under buildings — farmyards; woods; rivers; streams; ponds; paths; farm roads; expanses of bare rock, dense scrub and bog lands that are unfit for grazing. Deductions are not required for fences, headlands, hedgerows or drains. All forage areas must be defined by a permanent boundary except in the case of commonage land. The definition of permanent boundaries includes hedgerows, ditches, open field drains, walls, banks, stockproof post and wire fences, rivers etc.
Practically all agricultural land is now eligible for single payment scheme payments, with the exception of land under permanent crops, forestry, or any land used for non-agricultural purposes such as golf courses etc. The permanent crops referred to are non-rotational crops — other than permanent pasture — that occupy the land for five years or longer and yield repeated harvests; notwithstanding the ineligibility of permanent crops, specific provision was made to include short rotation coppice and miscanthus sinensis as eligible under the single payment scheme.
Research undertaken by Teagasc indicates that the willingness of farmers to convert land to energy crops depends on a variety of circumstances including the efficiency and profitability of the farming enterprise and non-economic circumstances such as farm size and the age and education of farmers.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
Existing specialist tillage farmers are more likely to consider energy crop production due to the similarities that exist between the production of cereals and energy crops in terms of machinery, soil type and agronomy skills. In general, the production of energy crops will only be sustainable in the longer term if the economic returns are comparable to those offered by traditional crop enterprises.
To improve the profitability of growing energy crops in Ireland, I introduced a number of support measures in 2007. The measures include a new national energy crop premium of €80 per hectare to supplement the EU premium of up to €45 per hectare available under the EU energy crops scheme. In February 2007, I launched a new bioenergy scheme to provide establishment grants to farmers interested in planting willow and miscanthus for bioenergy, heat and electricity, purposes. Establishment grants are payments to cover part of the costs of establishing the crop. Aid is being provided at a rate of 50% of establishment costs, subject to a maximum of €1,450 per hectare. The second phase of the scheme was launched in December 2007 and I have provided sufficient funding to support the planting of 1,600 hectares in 2008. As a further support measure, areas planted with energy crops can qualify for the single farm payment. These incentives generated renewed interest among producers in growing energy crops in 2007 with some 8,000 hectares sown.
My Department is also supporting research into agri-energy projects, including energy crops, through the research stimulus fund programme. The programme facilitates research that supports sustainable and competitive agricultural production practices and polices and contributes to a scientific research capability in the agriculture sector. Under the 2005 and 2006 calls for proposals, five projects were selected that relate directly to biofuels and energy crops and received total grant assistance of €1.5 million. I significantly increased the allocation under the 2007 call for proposals, awarding some €5.3 million over the next four years to a further seven research projects. The research covers a broad range of bioenergy topics, including energy crop production.
The future outlook for energy crops depends on a number of factors, not least profitability at farm level. In the short term, the soaring world demand for grain is likely to lead to an increase in the area devoted to conventional cereal crops in Ireland and elsewhere in response to the current high grain prices. More long-term projections are difficult to forecast at this stage. Much will depend on the rate of development of production and consumption patterns for biofuels over the next number of years.
8 Deputy Dinny McGinley asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the number of young farmers who have received installation aid in each of the past five years on a county basis and the number of applications that have been rejected; if she is satisfied that there is enough flexibility within the scheme to take account of family difficulties and unusual circumstances to make sure that the maximum amount of farmers receive the help that they so desperately need in a difficult farming environment; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6864/08]
The number of payees under the installation aid scheme in the past five years on a county-by-county basis is set out in the following table:
|
County |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
2006 |
2007 |
|
Cavan |
29 |
12 |
10 |
17 |
22 |
|
Donegal |
21 |
21 |
11 |
7 |
7 |
|
Leitrim |
12 |
4 |
9 |
3 |
5 |
|
Louth |
12 |
7 |
10 |
8 |
4 |
|
Monaghan |
20 |
24 |
13 |
19 |
9 |
|
Sligo |
21 |
11 |
8 |
13 |
5 |
|
Laois |
29 |
24 |
12 |
10 |
21 |
|
Longford |
12 |
7 |
4 |
7 |
4 |
|
Offaly |
20 |
17 |
12 |
24 |
19 |
|
Westmeath |
17 |
16 |
9 |
9 |
11 |
|
Galway |
52 |
58 |
32 |
42 |
52 |
|
Mayo |
33 |
33 |
30 |
22 |
26 |
|
Roscommon |
27 |
25 |
20 |
20 |
11 |
|
Dublin |
6 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
Kildare |
23 |
17 |
10 |
10 |
11 |
|
Meath |
37 |
25 |
11 |
18 |
16 |
|
Wicklow |
12 |
24 |
15 |
8 |
11 |
|
Clare |
48 |
36 |
23 |
25 |
33 |
|
Limerick |
55 |
53 |
36 |
30 |
29 |
|
Tipperary |
105 |
75 |
63 |
60 |
42 |
|
Carlow |
13 |
15 |
15 |
10 |
6 |
|
Kilkenny |
56 |
43 |
25 |
40 |
21 |
|
Waterford |
34 |
27 |
12 |
18 |
21 |
|
Wexford |
44 |
22 |
36 |
32 |
37 |
|
County Cork |
178 |
135 |
75 |
118 |
132 |
|
Kerry |
71 |
72 |
55 |
44 |
42 |
|
Total |
987 |
808 |
557 |
615 |
597 |
The number of applications rejected during the same period is 231. I am satisfied that there is sufficient flexibility in the current scheme, the young farmers installation scheme, to deal with unusual and unforeseeable circumstances which may arise during the course of the application process. In particular, the scheme provides for the acceptance of force majeure as provided for in the relevant EU regulations governing the scheme. The Deputy will be aware that the grant rate under the current scheme, which was introduced in June 2007, is 57% higher than that which was available under the preceding scheme.
I am the super sub here today.
If I am correct in interpreting the unusual circumstances alluded to in this question tabled by Deputy McGinley, it is the case of a young applicant who has been given a herd number on the basis that he was farming only leased land because the farm was too small to sustain two people. When the transfer of the land takes place, the young person is not eligible for the installation aid because he is already farming. The requisite qualifying conditions are based on a very complicated calculation, standard man days. An anomaly exists and this is the reason for the question. I hope I have got this right or I will not be able to walk in here next week.
I am not aware of the specific case but the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, will review some of the issues raised by the Deputy.
The principal reason for ineligibility has been failure to achieve the educational or property requirements, failure to reach the minimum level of farm income within the determined period after a set-up, failure to respect the age limit of 35 years laid down in the scheme for the first setting up of farming and failure to meet the time limit for lodging applications under the scheme.
The chicken and egg situation is achieving the farm income without leasing land.
The rule is that the applicant must not be in farming. He was initiated within the leasing agreement. I will agree to examine the case. Both of us will look at it. It there are two Ministers looking at it, it might not be half as bad.
Change the rules
The relevant Deputy will be very impressed.
We do not bend rules over here in Fianna Fáil; it is terrible, scandalous behaviour.
I am impressed by the collective nature of the ministerial team in answering questions.
That is why we are strong.
I will call the next question. I ask the Minister of State to precis the answer to allow for a brief supplementary.
9 Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food her plans to improve the incomes of potato farmers; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [7117/08]
I will do my best but I will be reading very fast.
Potato production in Ireland is mainly focused on the fresh ware market serving domestic consumption. Investment in storage facilities has resulted in the availability of quality ware potatoes for almost the entire year. At retail level, there have also been major changes over the past decade with the multiples exacting major influence on the market. Buying power is now concentrated in the hands of five to six retail multiples who control about 70% of the ware market and these multiples have largely consolidated their supply base in potato merchants who, in turn, are mainly serviced by large specialist growers. This has brought about a tighter supply base and provided for greater controls on traceability, quality and food safety.
My Department operates the scheme of investment aid for the development of the potato sector. The current scheme is focused on the seed producers sector. It is aimed at improving the production and marketing infrastructure of seed through investment in equipment and facilities for the production, storage and marketing of seed potatoes.
The time allocated for questions has expired but I will allow a brief supplementary from Deputy P. J. Sheehan.
The source of all the trouble is the red tape bureaucracy of the Department which is forcing potato growers out of existence. I heard the Minister of State speak about farm markets the other day. I ask him to re-examine the regulations appertaining.
What we are seeing is a consolidation of the growers. Many small growers are being squeezed and the Government needs to take action to advocate on behalf of the local producers.
Deputy Sheehan needs to aim his attention wider than the Department if he is looking to solve the problem. We have been grant aiding——
It will wipe out the small man.
I can give the Deputy the figures but it would take too long. I refer to €2.65 million granted to 80 applicants under the national development programme. I appreciate that Deputy Sherlock is focusing on the fact that smaller growers — it is also, unfortunately, the case with regard to some larger growers — are also finding it difficult to trade. The reason is that the return for the grower is less than one fifth of what the consumer is paying in the supermarket. This is a matter I would love to be able to go out and deal with, but I cannot do so on the basis of various state aid rules. However, I am stating clearly — as I hope will the Deputies — that unless the multiples pay more overall to the grower, it will not be possible for many growers to stay in business. This issue needs to be carried forth from this House from all sides.
The Department should reduce the amount of red tape.
