Vol. 654 No. 4
86 Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will report on his recent meeting with the French Agriculture Minister, Michel Barnier, on the ongoing World Trade Organisation negotiations; the Government’s intention with regard to the use of the veto; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19896/08]
I had a constructive meeting on Friday, 9 May with my French counterpart, Michel Barnier. We exchanged views on the ongoing WTO negotiations and it was clear that we had similar concerns about the lack of balance in the current situation and about the push for an early agreement, even though many important issues had yet to be resolved. Both of us had serious misgivings about the negative impact of the current proposals on EU agriculture. We agreed that it was important to communicate those concerns forcefully to the Commission and to build alliances with like-minded member states in support of our position.
The meeting is one of a series of contacts concerning the WTO arranged with the Commission and my counterparts in other member states. At yesterday's Agriculture Council of Ministers meeting I met the Agriculture Commissioner, Mrs. Fischer Boel, and I reiterated and highlighted Ireland's concerns to the Commission and to other member states, insisting that any WTO agreement must not place a disproportionate burden on EU and Irish agriculture.
I will continue also to ensure that Ireland plays a leading role in the group of 14-plus like-minded member states that have come together to express concerns on the direction of the WTO agriculture negotiations. I am travelling to Slovenia next week where I will have bilateral discussions on the WTO with my colleagues from other member states.
As to the veto, I remind Deputy Creed that the WTO negotiations are still in progress and there is no clarity as yet regarding either the eventual outcome or the timing of any deal. In those circumstances, it is premature to speak in terms of a veto at this point. Many aspects of the negotiations are still outstanding and we should not rush our fences. The important point is to continue to fight strongly for a balanced deal that does not sacrifice agriculture.
The House can rest assured that everything possible is being done, and at every political level, to ensure Ireland's interests are best protected in these negotiations. I intend to spare no effort and to continue to work with other member states in the days and weeks ahead on the matter.
At the outset I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Smith, on his appointment. I look forward to working with him in the best interests of Irish agriculture and the agri-business sector. I am sure I speak for my colleagues in that respect. I also congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, on his appointment in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I do not mean these comments to be personal but I read the press statement issued subsequent to the Council of Agriculture Ministers meeting yesterday and regret the continuing clap-trap regarding the need for a balanced deal. Farmers do not know what the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food means when it refers to a balanced deal. What they want to hear, almost exclusively now in the context of the Lisbon treaty, is that if what is on the table now regarding tariff cuts of up to 70% in beef and high tariff cuts across other sectors also is the final deal presented by Commissioner Mandelson, first, that the veto is available as a political option for the Department to use and, second, that if what is on the table now is what will be put before the Minister and the Government to approve they will use the veto option.
I thank Deputy Creed for his good wishes. I look forward to working with him and his colleagues in the Fine Gael Party, Deputy Sherlock and all Members in the best interests of Irish agriculture.
The Falconer paper was published last night but I had to attend a Government meeting and did not have an opportunity to read it yet but my officials will work on that immediately. We will be involved in the consultative group as well in an early meeting regarding the most recent paper that has just been published. We have major concerns about where we are in these negotiations. Some of the proposals that originated from Geneva would have serious consequences for European Union agriculture. For Ireland, the consequences of a bad deal would be particularly severe for the beef industry but other sectors such as dairy, sheepmeat and pigmeat will feel the impact also. That is the reason we are so determined to fight this measure.
As a trading country we are committed to the growth of international trade. That is for the benefit of both the urban and the rural economies but we do not want a deal that will sacrifice agriculture.
Deputy Creed, in the second part of his question and also in his supplementary, asked about the status of the veto. Deputy Creed may not have had the opportunity to hear the Taoiseach confirm recently in the House, in answering a question from the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Enda Kenny, that we have the option on a veto but we are not at that stage. We share the concerns of Members and the agricultural community in general. The reality is the Commission is working to a mandate from the European Council and as Deputy Creed is aware, the Commissioner must work to that mandate on the agriculture side in line with the Council mandate. That is the position.
The unfortunate reality is that the Minister operates to a mandate from the Council of Agriculture Ministers. The political failing of that Council of Ministers, the Minister and, more pointedly, his predecessor, was that they did not ensure the Commissioner did not stray beyond that brief, which he has done. I am not aware if the Department or the Council of Ministers have a plan B which considers side deals or compensation measures for sectors within the agriculture industry, perhaps a €300 suckler cow grant to compensate for it.
I welcome the Minister's confirmation that the veto exists as a policy option, and I accept the Falconer paper published today, but if the options that were on the table up to now, which was the 70% cut in beef tariffs, the similar cuts in the dairy sector and across other sectors in the industry, are the ultimate proposals that will be put before the Irish Government to accept or reject, will the Government use the veto to reject them?
First, the view within the European Commission is that there is probably no more than a 50-50 chance of a deal. The Commission has not sent out any particular message that a deal is imminent——
The French Agriculture Minister is; he has been very clear.
We are well over time.
I said the Commission. Deputy Creed's question referred to my meeting last Friday week with the French Minister. That was the first meeting I had outside the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food since I was appointed. I spent half a day with Minister Barnier, and we both met the Taoiseach subsequently to discuss this issue. There was a meeting yesterday with Minister Barnier and other Ministers who are like-minded in terms of our concerns about where the negotiations are heading. At the weekend I will have the opportunity to have further discussions with other Ministers who share our serious concerns about these negotiations.
We are well over time on this question.
Each member of the Government, be it the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Taoiseach, has taken every opportunity in every forum to express our concerns.
Is there a plan B?
I doubt if there is a plan B.
87 Deputy Seán Sherlock asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the steps he is taking to address growing food shortages; if he will convene a meeting with food and farming representative bodies to chart a plan going forward; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19697/08]
Increasing food prices and concerns regarding availability of food is a global situation, which is most severely affecting those people living in developing countries. This complex issue has many causes, including recurrent bad weather and changing and increasing food requirements among countries caused in particular by economic and population growth.
There is also an increasing global awareness that food security should not be taken for granted. Agriculture has a vital role to play, both in meeting food requirements and renewable energy, and in managing scarce water and soil resources. The critical role that agriculture plays highlights the continuing importance of the Common Agricultural Policy, which has all these concerns at its core. I spoke on this very point at the Agriculture Council meeting yesterday.
This underlines the role of Ireland as a major food exporting nation. The 2003 reforms of the CAP, with the introduction of the full decoupling of direct payments under the single payment scheme, allows farmers to respond to the demands of the market and effectively meet consumers' needs. The issue of security of food supply will play an important role in discussions about the future shape of the CAP both in the health check and in the proposed discussions about the CAP after 2013. Ireland will participate fully in those deliberations. At a global level we will also be participating in a high level FAO conference on the subject of global food security next month.
Although imports of certain commodities into the European Community may have increased, Ireland is a net exporter and is therefore not affected to the same extent as food deficit countries by global food shortages. Bord Bia produces annual estimates for the export performance of the Irish food and drink sector and has indicated that the agri-food sector increased its level of exports by 5% in 2007 to over €8.6 billion. There was marked growth in the exports of dairy products, food ingredients, prepared foods, beverages, horticulture and cereals.
It should be emphasised that there are in place a number of strategic plans operated by my Department which have the overall objective of developing and enhancing the capacity and competitiveness of the agriculture, food, forestry and fishing sectors.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
These include the Agri Vision 2015 Action Plan, the relevant commitments in Towards 2016, the national development plan and the rural development programme for the 2007-13 period, Steering a New Course, the seafood industry strategy, and the agriculture and marine research and development programmes in the national strategy for science, technology and innovation. These plans were compiled taking into account the views of the industry, farming organisations and other major stakeholders and are regularly monitored to ensure the relevant commitments are met on an ongoing basis.
My Department will continue to evaluate the changing international food markets and be aware of both the threats and opportunities that may arise.
On behalf of my party I join in congratulating the Minister on his appointment and also the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen.
The reason for the question is the degree of uncertainty which is having a marked result in this country in that we are now paying more for food. Families are paying much more for staple items and that gives rise to the question. If the WTO deal goes through as it is constituted, that will have a further uncertainty for food production throughout the European Union into the future. Many people are asking whether the Government has a coherent policy. Irish farmers and food producers will be asking whether that €8.6 billion in exports will be compromised in any way if global trends continue as they are. We are trying to elicit whether, notwithstanding the CAP health check and the FAO agenda on a global basis, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has a coherent strategy on the way forward for Irish producers to attain some degree of self-sufficiency — and ensure we take a long-term view on food production in Ireland. That is the premise of the question.
I thank Deputy Sherlock for his good wishes and look forward to working with him and our colleagues on all sides of the House.
We export 80% of the food we produce in Ireland. I was very glad that this particular issue was down for discussion yesterday at the Council of Ministers. It reinforces once again the particular issues raised by Deputy Sherlock as regards the importance of the Common Agricultural Policy. We all recall that the second article of the Treaty of Rome was to ensure a secure supply of safe food for the citizens of Europe — and the CAP has provided that stability. We are seeking additional milk quota from the health check, and we want simplification. In the recent past, set-aside has literally been set aside. There has been an increase in milk quota this year, and decoupling has been eased as well. These are important concerns. As regards the difficulties that emerged to date in the WTO negotiations, the reality is that this clearly demonstrates the importance of the Common Agricultural Policy. The health check is important now, and subsequently the CAP post-2013 will also be of extreme importance. Of course, the world food shortage has hit the least well off worst in this scenario. Ireland's overseas aid——
The House will hear a brief supplementary from Deputy Sherlock.
Does the Minister acknowledge that if the WTO deal goes through as it is constituted at present, this will have a further adverse effect for producers in developing countries — as well as for Irish producers? Ultimately, and this harks back to what the Fine Gael spokesman is saying as regards the current WTO deal, there are political considerations, both domestically and internationally. Irish farmers want to hear that there will be no dismantling of the long-term achievements of CAP into the future. It is clearly the case that the WTO deal, as it stands, will compromise those gains and indeed, diminish and destroy them. They want to hear a firm voice from the Government as to its intentions on the WTO deal.
We have been very strong supporters of the Common Agricultural Policy. We want it strengthened and improved because we realise its value to Europe and for the Irish economy, farming and the agri-food industry. We shall continue to highlight the importance of the Common Agricultural Policy. Perhaps we should also reflect on the fact that Ireland's overseas development aid has increased dramatically in recent years. I believe we will contribute €914 million this year. Within the overseas development programme, it is very important that there is long-term development policy as regards agriculture — where the beneficiary countries are given the capacity, know-how and expertise to ensure they can grow basic foodstuffs for themselves. That is the long-term solution to many of the terrible problems that exist in developing countries.
88 Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if in view of time constraints surrounding planning permission, the availability of contractors and health and safety concerns, he will extend the deadline for the completion of the farm waste management and farm improvement scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19897/08]
I thank Deputies Creed and Sherlock for their good wishes.
The revised farm waste management scheme was introduced by my Department in March 2006 in order to assist farmers meet the additional requirements of the nitrates directive. Under the scheme, a standard grant-rate of 60% — 70% in the four zone C counties — is available to farmers who complete the required investment works. The importance of this scheme for rural Ireland generally and for the protection of the environment cannot be overestimated and provides concrete evidence of the Government's continuing commitment to the agricultural sector in Ireland. Some €114 million was spent on the scheme in 2007 and payment claims substantially in excess of this figure are expected in 2008.
The success of the scheme is evidenced by the fact that 48,580 applications were received from farmers before the closing date of end December 2006. To date, more than 41,000 approvals have issued to farmers to commence work under the scheme. The remaining applications have either been withdrawn, are awaiting the receipt of full planning permission or are explained by the receipt of multiple applications from a single farmer. My Department is continuing to issue approvals on an ongoing basis as confirmation of the receipt of full planning permission is received from applicants and has already written to local authorities acknowledging the major contribution which they have made to this process and reminding them of the importance of the end-2008 deadline for completion of works under the scheme.
The end-2008 deadline is a condition of the EU state aid approval governing the scheme, and I would urge farmers to complete the works and submit a payment claim to my Department by end-2008 so that they can qualify for the generous grants available. The end-December 2008 deadline does not apply in the case of the farm improvement scheme, and farmers who are granted approval to commence work under that scheme are normally given a period of two years to complete the relevant investments. I do not propose to alter these arrangements.
I invite the Minister to take a look at his response in his spare time because he spends five minutes praising the scheme and gives the information requested in the question in the last 30 seconds.
The highly-geared construction industry, in 2006, achieved something like 80,000 house units and we are expecting the agricultural construction sector to meet 40,000 applications under the farm waste management scheme in something like an 18 month period. There is no way that deadline can be met. Either thousands of farmers will lose out in terms of their financial entitlements under the scheme, or shortcuts will be taken. As the former Minister of State with responsibility for health and safety, I am sure Deputy Killeen is aware of the dangers from on-farm accidents as well as accidents in the construction industry.
I do not want to see, at the end of this year, farmers being exposed to dangers because of deadlines that are beyond their capacity and that of their agricultural contractors. I implore the Minister of State to revisit this deadline before it is too late. This sector simply does not have the capacity to deliver on that deadline — in terms of the ordering of galvanise, cubicles, slatted units, shuttering etc. It simply is not possible to achieve the deadline at the end of this year. I implore the Minister of State to recognise the problem at this early date and negotiate a realistic extension of the deadline.
Deputy Creed made the point that much of the information was contained in the last paragraph of my reply. In fact, all the information about the numbers involved in the scheme is in the prior elements. Two schemes, in fact, were mentioned in the question, the farm waste management and the farm improvement schemes. The latter is not affected by the end of year deadline in this instance.
The Deputy also makes the point about the health and safety element of the construction industry and this is obviously a requirement that needs to be adhered to, and in my view it can be, quite comfortably. As regards the construction industry, the Deputy is right that in excess of 80,000 units were built in 2006 and the outturn for this year will probably be somewhere less than half that. There has been considerable speculation as regards the numbers being made unemployed in the construction sector by spokesmen from his and other parties. I do not have a concern therefore as regards manpower——
Apples and oranges, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, apples and oranges.
In this instance, it is an enormously important scheme from an environmental viewpoint. It is contributing hugely to the improvement of investment on farms and the environment. I am satisfied that farmers who have their approvals will be in a position to complete the works.
Is the Minister of State saying that at this stage he and his Department have no intention of seeking an extension? I accept it is not entirely within his hands, for a concession to be granted. However, does he expect that all of the applications on hand under the farm waste management scheme can be completed safely, to the appropriate standard, within that timeframe?
All the evidence currently available to the Department suggests the works can be completed within the timescale. It would be extraordinarily unhelpful to give any signal at this stage that the timescale was being reviewed, in view of the facts as outlined by the Deputy.
89 Deputy Tom Sheahan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the measures, in view the European Commission’s concerns regarding Ireland’s operational programme for fisheries application, he is taking to ensure the programme is salvaged; the discussions he has had with other Departments to ensure any action necessary is taken without further delay; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19898/08]
The national strategic plan for the Irish fisheries sector for the period 2007 to 2013 was prepared and approved by the Minister on 26 November 2007 and was subsequently submitted to the Commission on 28 November 2007. The plan sets out a programme of support for fisheries in line with the seafood sector review group report, the Cawley report, Steering a New Course — Strategy for a Restructured, Sustainable and Profitable Irish Seafood Industry 2007-2013, which was launched by the Taoiseach on 28 January 2007. The funding provisions for the strategy were set down in the National Development Plan 2007–2013.
The Department and Bord Iascaigh Mhara drew up an operational programme for fisheries for Ireland to implement the policies and priorities to be co-financed by the European Fisheries Fund. This operational programme, submitted to the Commission on 6 March 2008, envisages the use of EU funds under the European Fisheries Fund to support the decommissioning of fishing vessels, aquaculture development and environmental and inshore fisheries support. This only forms part of the commitment to support the sector as set down in the national development plan.
As part of the normal consultative process for approval, the Commission adopts a negotiating position whereby it sets out its observations and recommendations with regard to improving the operational programme. This negotiating position was received on 22 April 2008. Officials from the Department met the Commission on 24 April as part of the formal process in the consideration of Ireland's operational programme. The issues raised by the Commission were mainly procedural or editorial in nature. Disappointment was expressed at the exclusion of measures under the Axis 4 pillar of the European Fisheries Fund in respect of "sustainable development of fisheries areas". At a meeting between the Commission and officials of the Department on 24 April, acknowledgement was given to our commitment for implementing these measures through State-aided funds, as outlined in the national strategic plan. Notwithstanding this, the Commission continued to press for its inclusion under the operational programme. The Commission also expressed concerns over Ireland's implementation of certain EU directives on the environment in the context of providing EU funding under the operational programme for aquaculture development.
These issues are being dealt with interdepartmentally by officials from this Department and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Officials are fully engaged with the Commission with a view to bringing the consultation process to a successful conclusion and getting the operational programme approved as soon as possible. The Commission's observations in that regard will be considered fully.
On 22 April the Department was made aware that the operational programme was rejected. I tabled a parliamentary question recently and the response suggested it was not so aware. The former Minister stated that we face a bigger problem in that the operational programme for the fishing industry was rejected by the Commission. It was rejected on 22 April, a month ago. The Minister of State referred to meetings that have been held in the four weeks since the rejection. What progress has been made since? The former Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food quite squarely laid the blame on the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, yet the operational programme for fisheries falls within the remit of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Yesterday, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, referred to the report on the habitats directive, the shellfish waters directive and the water framework directive. I ascertain from this that considerable work must be done in this regard such that it will be acceptable to the Commission.
The Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, referred to an interdepartmental group. What progress has it made? Ireland is the only country in Europe that does not have an operational programme for fisheries. The Minister of State spoke about the Cawley report. How can we possibly implement its recommendations? It is almost June and half the year is nearly gone, yet no operational programme has been agreed and there is no money to be drawn from Europe. This has implications, in respect of which I will quote the former Minister.
The Deputy is not allowed to quote.
She stated that other small schemes, such as the REP scheme, which are co-funded or exclusively funded by the European Commission, will be affected.
The Deputy and other Members will appreciate that in the normal course of events, the Commission puts forward its position, on foot of which there is toing and froing at official level and fairly frequently at ministerial level, as in this instance, to address the outstanding issues. It is not helpful to blame the Commission, Departments or various directorates general at Commission level. The position is that Ireland is committed to delivering on the operational programme. It is consulting the Commission and we intend to bring the discussions to a constructive conclusion as soon as possible.
The meeting of which the Deputy spoke was less than a month ago and it would simply be impractical to expect the outstanding issues to have been dealt with since then.
Can we have a timeframe? What will be the cost to the State?
It is very difficult to give a timeframe for any of these issues, as the Deputy will be well aware. I assure him that the Department and I are committed to ensuring we progress the discussions on the operational programme as speedily as possible.
Will it be in 2008?
We must also take account of the fact that we are trying to achieve objectives and are working against the background of the Cawley report and other information and realities pertaining to the fishing industry. It would be far better to spend a few weeks or, at worst, a few months longer trying to achieve the appropriate outcome. Judgments must be made on this as we proceed to deal with the issues that arise.
Will it be this year?
I call Deputy Andrew Doyle.
It will be next year, I am afraid.
90 Deputy Andrew Doyle asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the measures being introduced to ensure the take-up of the €28 million mixed grazing supplementary measure available to sheep farmers; the way the funds will be utilised should the take-up remain low; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19903/08]
The mixed grazing supplementary measure is available to farmers joining REPS 4. Ultimately REPS is a voluntary, demand-led scheme and it is open to farmers to decide whether they want to take on the measure. It is still too early to judge how popular it is. On the basis of 3,800 applications for REPS 4 that were received and analysed by the end of last month, 240 applicants were opting for the mixed grazing measure. Last Thursday, 15 May 2008, was the closing date for REPS 4 applications for this year. When all applications have been processed, the position will become clearer.
That was concise.
The reply was shorter than I expected.
All the more time for the Deputy.
All the more time for me. It is safe to say that when all the information is gathered on the €28 million promised in 2007, it will be found that only €900,000 had been drawn down by May 2008. It is safe to say there will be a sizeable surplus. Given that the only other measure applicable to sheep farmers was contained in the farm improvement scheme, which has been closed prematurely, there is surely room for manoeuvre.
In many ways, the mixed grazing initiative has been unworkable for many sheep farmers, not least because of the mixed grazing requirement per se. Many affected farmers have no conduit of funding other than through sheep farming because of the nature of the landscape on which they work. To have mixed grazing, they would have to have bovines and provide wintering facilities, which they were not enabled to do, to comply with their REPS 4 obligations and meet the environmental concerns. I ask that there be a little lateral thinking. There is probably at least €27 million remaining of the €28 million.
That is if it ever existed.
The initiative was announced on 16 May 2007, as were some others. We must be a little circumspect in this regard. I am sure there is at least €27 million left and a little lateral thinking would allow it to be ring-fenced for the target group for which it was said to be intended.
Considerable lateral thinking has informed the background to the scheme. The Deputy will be aware that it was made very clear in the discussions with the Commission that the scheme is an environmental scheme, not a production scheme. We tried to include the sheep-only option but it was a step too far from the Commission's point of view because it wanted to ensure the measure was clearly environmental.
The scheme is demand-led and it is therefore a question of ensuring take-up on the basis of demand. The Deputy probably read the front page of the farming supplement of the Irish Independent this morning, as I did, and, if so, he will have noted that the reduction in sheep numbers is part of a bigger picture associated with the move from dry stock to tillage. There are also other factors, despite the ironic fact that stock prices have increased. This is perhaps because of supply and demand as much as any other factor. Consumption is reducing in our greatest export market, France.
There are broader questions to be answered with which it is not possible to deal in respect of REPS 4.
The timing of the question is greatly ahead of the Department's ability to evaluate the exact position. While one may speculate on the number of applications, the reason the answer was so short is it is not possible to provide much information at present until the information has been analysed in greater detail. At present, the Department is obliged to take account of the Commission's assertion this must be an environmental scheme, rather than a production assistance scheme.
When the scheme was announced, it was stated that €28 million was available. I accept some lateral thinking took place. Incidentally, I contend that aid to stock-proofing, which is contained in the farm improvement scheme pertains to health security, especially in respect of disease transmission etc. It also has environmental issues. However, when arriving at the figure of €28 million, some background studies must have been done to establish this was the amount of money required and that the target group could draw it down.
For various reasons, the schedule of payments for REPS 4 was a major issue at the outset and delayed uptake of the scheme. It certainly delayed the transfer of people from REPS 3 to REPS 4. Considerable research must have been done to establish that €28 million was needed. No matter how many people enter the scheme, the estimate was off the mark and the final figures, whenever they are collated, will differ greatly from it.
A total of €9,000 has been paid out.
It is interesting to hear the Deputy make this point because I can imagine that were the scheme over-subscribed, there would be hell to pay, had the Department failed to put in place sufficient money——
A total of €9,000 has been paid out to date.
I prefer to have complaints that too much, rather than too little, money is in place for the existing demand.
The Minister of State should come out of the fog.
Perhaps Members can agree the fund is not lacking and that adequate finance is available. Obviously it will require people to draw it down and this is where the information must be evaluated.
Is it workable?
It is the most workable scheme that could be arrived at——
A total of €9,000 has been paid out to date. It is a sham.
——in co-operation with the Commission, on the basis it had to be environmentally-led. It allows for people to benefit from the REPS payment in addition to their existing REPS payments. Hopefully this will be of benefit to those who have applied.
This concludes Priority Questions. We now will move on to——
It is bedevilled with red tape bureaucracy.
The Minister of State pulled the wool over the farmers' eyes.
