Vol. 658 No. 1
77 Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food his views on modulation proposals outlined in the CAP health check; the impact of such proposals on rural development; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25677/08]
For payments in excess of €5,000, additional compulsory modulation at a rate of 2% per year is proposed from 2009 to 2012. This would bring the modulation rate to 13% by 2012. A further 3% modulation is proposed on payments in excess of €100,000, an additional 6% is proposed on payments over €200,000 and an additional 9% is proposed on payments above €300,000.
The objective is to use this funding to finance measures directed at addressing what the Commission has described as the "new challenges" of climate change, risk management, bio-energy and biodiversity. As the proposals stand, all of the additional modulated funds would remain in the member state of modulation and could be allocated to farmer payments under the rural development programme.
In the negotiations to date a wide range of views have been expressed by member states on the Commission's proposal on modulation and it is not clear what finally will be agreed. I have opposed the proposed increases in modulation, together with several of my fellow Ministers for Agriculture. I have concerns about significantly reducing the single farm payment at a time when farmers are still adapting to the impact of decoupling and believe it is needlessly disruptive to change the Rural Development Programme 2007-2013 so soon after its adoption. However, I welcome that the funds released through additional modulation could be used for farm payments in Ireland.
Ireland strongly supports pillar 2 of the Common Agricultural Policy and is providing a high level of national funding for rural development. We already devote a substantial proportion of rural development funds to addressing the new challenges identified by the Commission.
I have to hand a press statement issued by the Minister on 28 May, subsequent to the most recent publication of the health check proposals. In respect of the modulation proposals, the Minister's statement reads:
In relation to the proposed increase in modulation . . . the Minister confirmed that any funds raised in this way would remain in Ireland and could be allocated to agricultural schemes and therefore Irish farmers would not lose under the proposals.
I wish to establish clearly that it is the position of the Government that Irish farmers are key to any rural development proposals and that any proposal emanating from the Commission which proposes to take money out of the pockets of farmers and invest it in rural development, via the Leader groups or otherwise, is entirely unacceptable. Robbing Peter to pay Paul in the name of rural development is unacceptable, notwithstanding the clear implication of the Minister's statement that this is an arrangement and proposal with which he could live. As time is critical, I wish to lay down a clear marker that the proposal to increase modulation to 13% by 2012 and to take money out of farmers' pockets is entirely unacceptable.
I agree with the Deputy. The statement he quoted from me was issued immediately after the publication of the Commissioner's proposals on 27 May, which was the first time I had sight of them. I repeat that Ireland is strongly opposed to increased rates of compulsory modulation. The CAP health check process has just begun. I responded previously to a parliamentary question tabled by the Deputy on the processes begun in respect of a number of issues. Working groups have been established, comprising representatives from each member state, to flesh out the proposals in each strand of the health check. At the Council of Ministers meeting I outlined that Ireland was strongly opposed to the modulation proposals.
The aforementioned statement simply outlined that in the past funds that were modulated, if one wishes to describe them as such, did not necessarily remain in the state from which they were taken. Under the new proposals, were modulation to be implemented, such funds would remain in the member state concerned. It is unclear what programmes can be assisted, were the modulation proposals to be implemented. The Commissioner may envisage some schemes that would be on-farm, rather than general, rural development programmes. While this still is unclear, I have stated clearly, as will officials within the working group, that Ireland is opposed to the modulation proposals outlined by the Commission. Only an initial discussion took place at the meeting or at subsequent Council of Ministers meetings. It still is early days and my officials will be doing their utmost to ensure we secure the best outcome and reiterate in the strongest possible terms Ireland's opposition to the modulation proposals.
Does the Minister accept that the single farm payment, by virtue of its static nature since its introduction, is of declining value year on year to the agricultural community? I refer to further tampering with it, by way of reduction, in the light of agri-inflation in particular. The Minister is aware, for example, that the prices this year of fertiliser, energy and feedstuffs have increased by 62%, 20% and more than 20%, respectively. Any tampering with the value of these payments will adversely affect both agriculture and rural development because farmers are key to vibrant rural communities.
I refer to the French Presidency which commenced today. When President Sarkozy visits Ireland in the near future, will the Minister avail of the opportunity to impress on him and the French who, in general, are supportive of the Common Agricultural Policy that this matter will not be tolerated by Ireland in the context of the health check?
As for the Deputy's point on the visit by President Sarkozy, he is aware I have met the French Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Michel Barnier, on a number of occasions when we discussed issues of common concern and interest. I will continue to so do within the Council of Ministers with like-minded Ministers. A variety of views have been expressed by Ministers from various member states regarding the CAP health check in respect of milk quota, modulation and decoupling. However, I agree fully with the Deputy, in that decoupling is relatively new and Ireland's farming system has adapted to it well. When farmers signed up to it, they were of the opinion that it constituted both a set and significant part of their income. I am opposed to farmers losing part of their income from the single farm payment.
78 Deputy Willie Penrose asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the progress made in the course of discussions with EU fisheries Ministers in Luxembourg last week with regard to the Irish fishing industry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25542/08]
The Agriculture and Fisheries Council of Ministers meeting in Luxembourg last week had a heavy agenda of fisheries items which were of importance to the Irish fishing industry. I attended the meeting with my colleague, the Minister of State with responsibility for fisheries and forestry, Deputy Killeen.
In the run-up to, and during, the Council, the Minister of State and I had a series of meetings with the Federation of Irish Fishermen regarding the difficult issues facing the Irish fishing industry such as rising fuel costs, low prices at the quayside for fish, competition from cheap imports of fish, the effects of illegal, unrecorded and unregulated fishing and quota restrictions due to declining fish stocks. We also met EU Commissioner Borg on a bilateral basis the week before the Council and made a strong case for the need for a package of EU-funded measures to address the difficulties faced by fishermen across Europe but in Ireland, in particular, and to set out other priority issues for Ireland.
Three significant regulations achieved political approval at the Council. A proposal was agreed for a Council regulation establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, commonly referred to as IUU. This important measure will address the high incidence of illegal fishing and significantly will tackle the marketing of fish and fishery products acquired through illegal fishing. After this measure comes into force in early 2010, all fishery products will require a certificate that they have been caught legally before they can be imported into the Community. This is a major regulation which has much international focus on its success and will represent good news for legal fishermen, as it will remove illegal products from the market. Ireland strongly supported this measure at the Council and also called for the Commission to develop effective labelling schemes in order that consumers can play a role by making an informed choice.
Political agreement was also achieved on a Council regulation on fishing authorisations for Community vessels in third country waters and third country vessels in Community waters, which is important to Ireland, given that we have responsibility for control of large fishing grounds. The third regulation agreed is a Council regulation on the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems in the high seas from the adverse impacts of bottom fishing gears, which follows on from a UN resolution.
The annual setting of total allowable catches and quotas is an important process for Irish fishermen and I will press for the maximum possible allocations for Irish fishermen during the negotiations taking into account the scientific advice on the state of stocks. Another agenda point was a joint request by Ireland, France and Britain for a mid-year increase in the 2008 total allowable catch for cod in the Celtic Sea, based on jointly submitted scientific advice from our respective marine research institutes indicating positive developments in the state of the stock.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
This is an important issue for our fishermen as Ireland's 2008 quota is almost gone and the fishery must be closed soon. As cod is taken in a mixed fishery, its closure inevitably will lead to discarding, which cannot be justified. After strong pressure from Ireland, France and the United Kingdom, the Commission agreed to consider proposing a increase in the 2008 total allowable catch, if the latest scientific advice, due out at the end of last month, is sufficiently positive.
A further significant point for Ireland was the renewal of the fisheries partnership agreement with Mauritania which provides fishing opportunities for Community vessels in Mauritanian waters for the next four years. These opportunities are mainly of interest to our pelagic fleet.
The most immediately significant agenda item concerned the crisis in the European fishing industry and, in particular, the effects of the recent rapid increases in fuel costs. Ireland, together with all the other affected member states, conveyed in the strongest terms the depth of feeling of our fishermen on these issues and the seriousness of the situation facing them which has led to public protests across Europe, including Ireland.
Commissioner Borg stated he had listened carefully to the case made both in the lead-up to and at the Council and undertook to come to the next Council meeting on 15 July with a package of emergency measures to try to alleviate the crisis. He has flagged that these measures will be based on a commitment to addressing the over-capacity and over-exploitation issues in the long term. However, in the short term they may include funding of partial decommissioning to replace older vessels with more energy efficient ones, temporary cessation aid for vessels involved in such schemes, modifications to the de minimis aid rules, reductions in social security contributions for employees, support for research into fuel efficiency and the shift to energy-efficient technologies, as well as marketing measures to address the prices achieved at first point of sale, that is, the quayside. At the Council we pressed for additional EU funding to be made available and I made it clear that the package must include additional EU funding to provide for the implementation of these measures.
I thank the Minister for a comprehensive reply. This pertains to the seafood industry which is worth up to €800 million and which certainly has been suffering significant and devastating consequences. In particular, I refer to the impact on the approximately 12,000 people employed in coastal communities. It surely behoves Ireland to make an all-out effort to deliver a profitable and sustainable industry. The Minister is aware that many fishermen face complete economic ruin in the absence of a significant intervention, rather than a token gesture, to save coastal communities.
The Minister is aware that the industry has sustained a series of changes, all impacted over a short period, but even prior to the fuel price increases many were finding it difficult to operate. Many had the idea of converting borrowings into long-terms loans but will financial institutions do that now? Will the Minister agree that the people who bring in the catch are the price takers? They do not come up with the price and they are not in a position to pass on any costs in that regard.
Why can we as a country not intervene directly and render assistance, as other countries do? This is part of the European debate. The French can do what they like. The Spanish Government can intervene when it deems it necessary to do so but we are always the great white knights who obey every rule, and it is one of the reasons the Lisbon treaty referendum was defeated. Our problem is that we are too subservient.
The Minister met the fishermen and the representatives in Athlone. They sought a temporary tie-up scheme, which is allowed under the European fisheries fund. That should not be given as an excuse. What is the position on the control of fish imports and anti-dumping measures the Minister referred to? We all saw what happened at the cargo terminal in Cork, which was a frightening scenario. Why can we not market the fish, which is vital from a health perspective?
What is the position on the commitment to provide the decommissioning scheme for 80 m vessels? Where is the €58 million that was provided for that scheme?
As an island nation we should take a pivotal role in responding to the current crisis. The European Commission made promises and gave various commitments but that is like the acorn seed. It takes years for the oak tree to grow. How long will it take the Council of Ministers to deliver? What input will this country have to try to secure and save an industry that is extremely important, even for those of us in the midlands? It is important for the country. We call upon the Minister to intervene and take every step to ensure the security and future of this important industry.
As Deputy Penrose said, I had a long and detailed meeting with the Federation of Irish Fishermen in his home county of Westmeath a number of weeks ago. In the meantime, both the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, our officials and myself had the opportunity to meet its members on a number of occasions and both before and after the Council of Ministers meeting.
One of the issues highlighted to us is that the fisherman is always price taking and that in recent times the actual price they have been getting for the product has decreased whereas for the consumer the price of the end product, whether it is in a restaurant, a supermarket or whatever, had increased.
In that regard, following the meeting in Athlone we established immediately a national Irish seafood market initiative, which was one of the issues we put to the federation that day, under the chair of the chief executive officer of Bord Iascaigh Mhara. The remit of the initiative will be to discuss, identify and maximise the opportunities for domestic seafood supply to the Irish seafood market. The objective is to bring the producers, fishermen, wholesalers, distributors and processors together to ensure that the producers and market suppliers communicate with the industry to ensure that everybody gets a fair price in the chain of production and processing.
Shortly after I was appointed to this office I made contact with Commissioner Borg. I had in excess of a 30 minute detailed telephone conversation with him. Subsequently, the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, and I met him in advance of the Council of Fisheries Ministers meetings. We outlined to him, as Deputy Penrose pinpointed, and others in the House a week ago during the debate, the serious issues facing the industry. We outlined those issues cogently and strongly to the Commissioner at our bilateral meeting. That was followed up subsequently at our Council of Ministers meetings where both the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, and I spoke about all those important issues.
In view of the fact that as a Common Fisheries Policy we put strong pressure and proposals to the Commission to bring forward an EU funded package of measures, a number of initiatives have been taken. To answer Deputy Penrose's question about when the Commission will come back on the issue, Commissioner Borg said he will come back at the Council of Ministers meeting, which is the 15 July, on foot of the deliberations of the Council meeting a week ago. We let him know in no uncertain terms, however, the serious situation facing so many fishermen.
I want to ask two brief questions. The Minister mentioned the Common Fisheries Policy. What efforts are being made to level the playing field from the perspective of control and enforcement across all member states to ensure that penalties imposed are harmonised and that Irish fishermen are not discriminated against? Has any progress been made in investigating the discriminatory ban on Irish commercial vessels landing sea bass, which does not apply to other EU states fishing in Irish waters?
Also, is any extra funding available to be directed without delay to investigation of and research into alternatives to diesel for fishing boats? The Leas-Cheann Comhairle got a communication from a fisherman in Kilmore Quay who said that if this is not done, there will shortly be no white fish to market because it will not be cost effective to catch it. He said that is not exaggeration or a case of fishermen whinging and that we should investigate now for the future.
Regarding the latter points, as I mentioned earlier, the IUU regulation has been adopted at the Fisheries Council.
Regarding a level playing field, we secured a commitment from Commissioner Borg that he would examine a specific proposal from Ireland that would help strengthen the tools available to coastal states such as Ireland to control fishing activity in our exclusive fishery zones. Ministers are seeking in particular that the coastal member state has access to the quota limits applying to any Community vessels fishing in its waters. Currently, our authorities do not have access to get the relevant details on a vessel from another EU state. That is a lacuna in the EU regulations and it is one of the proposals we put to Commissioner Borg.
Deputy Penrose asked about decommissioning. The Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, announced a week ago that the offers have gone out regarding the decommissioning scheme.
Again.
That concludes the time for this question.
No. The offers have gone out to the individual vessel owners. A total of €42 million has gone out——
It was €58 million.
Not a brown penny for the deckhands.
The Minister is lucky he is not dealing with Deputy P.J. Sheehan.
79 Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will undertake a review of his Department’s programme of activities, services and schemes available in view of the of tightening budgetary environment; if so, when he expects to complete such a review; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25678/08]
My Department implements a broad range of schemes and services in the agriculture, forestry, fishing and food processing sectors. It is responsible for voted expenditure of some €1.9 billion in 2008 and also acts as paying agency in respect of EU funding for direct payments to farmers and market supports which total about €1.4 billion.
A high proportion of the Department's Vote relates to large demand-led schemes, for example, the REPS, the farm waste management scheme, the farm investment scheme, forestry, the less favoured areas scheme, grants for marketing and processing projects and the new suckler cow scheme, which together account for more than €1 billion in the Vote in 2008. Expenditure under these schemes is contingent on a variety of factors outside of the Department's control. These include farmer confidence, the availability of finance, the rate of completion of capital projects, weather and other factors.
The agencies under the Department's aegis — Teagasc, Bord Bia, BIM, the Marine Institute and the Sea Fisheries Protection Agency——
There will be nothing to protect soon.
——together account for over €250 million of the Department's Vote this year to ensure that investment in the farming, forestry, fisheries and food sectors continues to play a critical role in encouraging innovation, improving competitiveness and ensuring protection of the environment.
Expenditure, receipts and the achievement of key outputs are very closely monitored on an ongoing basis with a view to delivering the best possible service to stakeholders and to achieve key targets within the budget allocations agreed by the Oireachtas. Value for money reviews are undertaken on a regular basis. In addition, on the initiative of the Minister for Finance, the Department has been engaged in an efficiency review with a view to identifying measures which might be taken in order to effect improvements in efficiency in service delivery generally.
The Department's main contribution to this process was to commit to a further reduction of 200 in staff numbers over the next few years. Further initiatives to reduce costs and improve efficiency are under consideration.
I intend to continue with this prudent, ongoing approach to managing the Department's finances while taking due account of any decisions taken by Government in the context of the current more challenging fiscal situation.
I am nearly as wise as I was before the Minister responded, but I expect all will become clearer after the House rises. I appreciate that many of the schemes funded by the Department are demand led and the Department will have no choice but to honour those schemes.
An issue that exercised us on Question Time on the past number of occasions is the sheep sector and, in particular, a package of €28 million, which was promised in May 2007 in the lead up to the general election. In the last series of oral questions the Minister confirmed that a total of €9,000 out of the package of €28 million had been paid. Will the Minister assure the House that particularly vulnerable sector of Irish agriculture, the sheep farming sector, will not be asked to carry the can in respect of efficiencies or cutbacks — call them what he may — and that package, although it requires to be re-tailored to fit the needs of the sheep sector which is in decline, will be ring-fenced for the sheep sector?
I will come back to Deputy Creed with more detail. I will write to him during the week because I do not have statistics with me on the take-up there may have been in the meantime since he tabled that parliamentary question.
I assure him that I met individual farmers and others familiar with the sheep sector. There are concerns about the decline in numbers for some time but, thankfully, there has been an improvement in prices which was badly needed. It is an area in which I want to take a particular interest because it is one that needs some assistance and needs confidence built back into it. North of the Border, as I have gathered from speaking to officials in the Department there and the Minister, they have been finding similar problems to ourselves in the sheep meat sector, and it is an area we want to help.
I do not want to be too prescriptive, but quite a large percentage of the recommendations of the John Malone report into the sheep sector have already been implemented. Some of them are in the course of implementation as well. I do not want to state the specific percentage — I do not recall it exactly. I will send Deputy Creed a note on the sheep sector, in particular, over the next few days.
I appreciate that. The complexity of all of this is difficult to grasp in a short space of time. Will the €28 million fund be ringfenced and remain for the sheep sector? That was a promise made. It is a fund that has not been drawn down. It was promised because it is a sector in crisis. It was a fund that was established with so many strings attached that it proved virtually impossible for the sheep sector, highland or lowland, to access it.
Given the Minister has made a specific commitment to the sheep sector and has had discussions with his Northern Ireland counterparts, will he investigate — this is slightly aside from the main thrust of this question — the potential of the wool industry? It is a sector that has been virtually a "discard", if I may import the term from the marine industry. It is an asset that has been virtually discarded in recent years, but may be coming back into vogue. The Minister might look at it, both from an insulation perspective and from a wool and yarn perspective.
I also had discussions with Ministers from the other devolved administrations in our neighbouring island on a number of issues. We have been making arrangements to hold formal meetings — these were more informal meetings.
One of the issues we will have down for discussion at the next North-South Ministerial Conference on Agriculture that comes up relatively shortly is the issue of sheep and, obviously, the all-island health status which is a regular issue on which we continue to make progress. It will be one issue that I will be discussing in the meetings being arranged at North-South Ministerial Conference level with Minister Gildernew and her officials.
And he will ringfence the €28 million. He will not let it slip away.
As Deputy Creed will be aware, we review on an ongoing basis the particular demands on each of the subheads in the Department. Sometimes there can be pressure on one subhead. Other times there can be a reduced draw down on another subhead. At times, in my limited knowledge of Government finances, there can be a transfer between subheads within a Department depending on the particular pressures at different times.
Is that a "No"?
I will not mislead Deputy Creed or any Member of the House. I do not know what draw down there has been on that particular scheme to date.
€9,000.
As Deputy Creed will be aware, sometimes the draw down can change considerably in a short space of time——
Ceist Uimhir 80 in ainm on Teachta chéanna.
——but I will not give him information that would not be accurate.
It paid a rich dividend for the Government before the last election.
Deputy Sheehan, these are Priority Questions.
80 Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the position regarding recent developments in ongoing World Trade Organisation negotiations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25992/08]
The WTO Director General announced on Friday last that he will propose that a WTO ministerial meeting take place in Geneva in the week commencing 21 July next. The purpose of this meeting is to finalise the modalities or detailed texts of agreements on agriculture and non-agricultural market access, NAMA. It is envisaged that a Signalling Conference on Trade in Services will take place at the same time.
In preparation for the conference, it is expected there will be further engagement on agriculture and NAMA for the remainder of this week with revised texts due towards the end of next week. This will be followed by meetings at official level in the run up to the ministerial conference.
If agreement is reached on agriculture and NAMA modalities at this time, the expectation is that, in the period needed to produce detailed WTO schedules, the other areas of negotiation would be concluded so that the final overall agreement would be in place by the end of this year.
It is by no means clear that this objective will be achieved. In addition to the large number of complex issues across the broad spectrum of negotiating areas which are unresolved, the uncertainty in the US political situation could play a crucial role in whether this proposed timetable for reaching a final agreement is achieved.
I am very concerned about some of the proposals being made in the agriculture negotiations and with the lack of balance in the overall process to date. It is not acceptable that the current negotiations are focused on agriculture while other negotiating areas are not making progress.
The Government has and will continue to take every opportunity to express our concerns in the strongest terms in the various EU and WTO meetings dealing with these negotiations. I recently met my French counterpart, and the current state of play and imbalance in these WTO negotiations were high on the agenda of this meeting. I can report that France and Ireland share the same concerns on the direction of these negotiations and will continue to insist that the Commission does not accept a deal which undermines EU agricultural production. I have also had formal bilateral meetings with my colleagues from Spain and Poland and they too share our concerns. I had meetings with other Ministers from member states as well.
The Commission, including Commissioner Mandelson and his officials, are well aware of Ireland's views on the matter. These views have been articulated clearly and consistently at all available fora over the last several years, including bilateral meetings, meetings of the Article 133 Committee, the Agriculture Council and the General Affairs Council, and in bilateral meetings with the Commission.
At last week's Agriculture Council of Ministers meeting, I re-emphasised to the Agriculture Commissioner, and to the Council as a whole, Ireland's concerns. I referred, in particular, to the changes that had taken place since WTO negotiations commenced in 2001 and I insisted the new challenges of climate change and food security must be taken on board in any deal.
In the margins of the Council, a group of 20 EU countries reaffirmed their deep concerns about the WTO negotiations. I will continue to ensure Ireland plays a leading role in this group of like-minded member states. I will continue to work closely with like-minded Ministers in other member states to seek support for our position.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
At official level, my Department, and other Departments involved, have and will continue to work assiduously in the various technical meetings to ensure Ireland's interests are best protected.
In summary, I will continue to pursue an outcome which does not undermine the 2003 reforms of the CAP and ensures that Irish and EU agriculture can compete on world markets.
Notwithstanding his reluctance previously at Question Time here, and indeed, the reluctance of his predecessor, to commit to using the veto in respect of the proposals on the table now, does it remain the Government's position, as articulated, albeit at a late stage — with hindsight, far too late — in the context of the Lisbon treaty, and will the Minister confirm in the House that it is the Government's intention to veto unacceptable proposals? Second, has there been any change or variation in the proposals on the table at the WTO as they relate to agriculture, and particularly as they relate to tariff cuts in the areas that are of particular interest in Ireland, namely, beef, dairy products and other critical sectors of Irish agriculture?
Mr. Sarkozy, apart from being the French President and the incoming EU Presidency, is a strong advocate of the Common Agricultural Policy. He has made various trenchant criticisms recently, not just of Commissioner Mandelson but also of the WTO proposals that are now on the table. In that context, has the Minister proposals, with the Taoiseach, to meet Sarkozy to discuss these issues, particularly as President Sarkozy appears to be under the impression that the Government may rerun the Lisbon treaty referendum?
On the question on unanimity before the Lisbon treaty, as we all are aware, there was any amount of misrepresentation and misinformation on the Lisbon treaty and what it would and would not affect. There was a suggestion from the "No" campaign that unanimity would not be a requirement for a WTO deal if the Lisbon treaty was ratified. Unanimity was a requirement before the referendum and would have remained a requirement if the treaty had been ratified by our electorate. The Taoiseach clarified this point with the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association and the IFA——
They were discussing a veto. The Minister should not be afraid to say the word.
I am not afraid to say it and I was going to use the word. The misinformation circulating created a need for a debate on the requirement for unanimity. My predecessor, the Taoiseach and I have indicated that Ireland is prepared to use its veto if an agreement which is unacceptable——
The word "veto" has been used on the record by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which I welcome.
The Deputy should allow the Minister to make his statement, please.
I welcome this and it is a change of heart.
What Deputy Creed says is not correct because he——
The record will show the Minister used the term "veto".
The Deputy should allow the Minister to finish his sentence, please.
I have participated in public broadcasts and media interviews and stated then what I will state now, if I have the opportunity to finish. The Taoiseach indicated that Ireland is prepared to use its veto if an agreement unacceptable to it is put to a vote and this remains the position.
To revert to the Deputy's earlier question, we expect revised papers on non-agricultural market access, NAMA, and agriculture negotiations probably by 7 July in advance of the meeting on 21 July. The position outlined clearly by the Taoiseach in advance of the Lisbon treaty referendum was simply clarification and was consistent with every utterance from the Government on the requirement for unanimity for a WTO deal. I emphasise this point to the House.
81 Deputy Tom Sheahan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the measures he will introduce to ensure that Irish fishermen are not placed at a competitive disadvantage to their counterparts in other member states by the introduction of state aid packages for the fishing industry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25993/08]
The current discussions at EU level on the high cost of fuel are essentially about short-term emergency measures. However, any long-term solution to the current difficulties will have to include measures to rectify the fundamental rebalancing of the fleet capacity with the stock resources available, taking into account the operational costs involved for fishing vessel owners. Grant aid totalling €41.1 million to decommission 46 fishing vessels under the 2008 fishing vessel decommissioning scheme has been announced. Approved applicants have until 18 July to accept the offer and, if they do so, they must surrender fishing licences by 12 September 2008.
This represents a substantial commitment from the Government, bringing the Irish fishing fleet into balance with available resources and ensuring those remaining in the industry can be assured of a profitable future. The removal of older, less efficient vessels will increase the quotas available to the more modern competitive fishing vessels and to smaller vessels and will contribute to achieving a more sustainable and profitable fleet. The scheme delivers on a key recommendation of the strategy for a restructured, sustainable and profitable seafood industry 2007 to 2013, Steering a New Course, also known as the Cawley report.
The Commission's discussion paper for short-term aid for the industry was the subject of detailed consideration at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 24 June. The options being considered for such short-term aid carry strict criteria which include linkages to more fundamental fleet management measures. Operating aid for fishing vessels is not permitted under EU state aid rules and any such measures introduced by EU member states would be in breach of EU law and subject to infringement proceedings in the European Court of Justice. The Commission is intent on preserving a level playing field and reiterated this in its discussion paper at the Council meeting. The paper states that there is an impending need to act in order to avert a severe crisis for the EU fishing industry. The response must be EU wide and co-ordinated in order to avoid distorting competition between member states or fleets.
At the Council meeting, and in line with the Commission's stated policy, we pushed Commissioner Borg to bring forward a new EU-funded package of measures to alleviate the immediate issues of concern to the Irish fishing industry. We believe that an effective resolution to many of the issues facing the industry, including the impact of rising fuel prices and quotas, can only be achieved in an EU context.
The Commission has consistently held the view that the main challenge for the EU fishing industry has been, and still is, the structural imbalance between fleet capacity and resources in many fisheries. It firmly holds the view, with which I agree, that while the current crisis was triggered by high fuel prices, there are many other factors impacting negatively on the industry.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
These include illegal, unreported and unregistered, IUU, fishing activity and imports in the Union. In this regard, I am pleased that the Council took strong action and new measures to combat IUU fishing, estimated at €1.1 billion of illegal imports into the Union annually, were agreed and will commence at the beginning of 2010. I have also asked the Commission to bring forward urgently initiatives on research and innovation to find ways to develop more fuel-efficient engines and fishing practices.
As it is clear that high fuel prices will remain, it is imperative, more than ever, to attack the root of the structural problems of the sector. We have put a significant element of the solution to this in place and are delivering on it through the whitefish decommissioning scheme.
I was pleased with the short-term measures offered by several member states and with the response of the Commissioner Borg, who has undertaken to revert to the next Council meeting on 15 July with definitive proposals to address the issues facing fishermen.
I was hoping the Minister, Deputy Smith, would answer my question.
I invite the Deputy to put a supplementary question.
The Minister spoke of decommissioning the fleet, which has nothing whatsoever to do with my question. I wish to know what short-term suggestions and measures Commissioner Borg proposed. At a meeting yesterday in Athlone, which I attended, the fishermen were militant. They did not discuss decommissioning or the Cawley report, which takes a long-term view of ways to maintain a profitable fishing industry. The fishermen talked about what can be done for them in the next few weeks so that they will not go out of business. These people are in dire financial need. Having examined the matter, I believe the only option is tie-ups and I hope the Minister has discussed the possibility of this measure with Commissioner Borg. I believe this is the only immediate, short-term measure which can save the fishing industry in Ireland.
The Minister in his reply suggested that the introduction of state aid packages was illegal, or that Governments should not adopt such a policy. However, governments are doing this at present. The Spanish Government, as Deputy Penrose said, will do whatever it must in order to save the Spanish fishing industry. It may be illegal but it depends on the way the Spanish Government structures aid and provides it for Spanish fishermen. What short-term measures have been put to Commissioner Borg to save the fleet, before decommissioning and the recommendations of the Cawley report are rolled out? What short-term measures have been proposed to keep fishermen on the water?
I have met the fishermen and I know their concerns. I have also heard these concerns from colleagues in the Oireachtas. Several issues were put to Commissioner Borg both in the meeting with the Minister of State, Deputy Tony Killeen, and I and at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council. We made progress on the IUU regulation, which I mentioned earlier in answer to a question from Deputy Penrose. We also strongly made the case that the least people should expect in an industry is a level playing field in the regulation of catches which are taken illegally from our waters and so on.
We also strongly made the case for a marketing initiative to promote the purchase of good, wholesome, nutritious fish from European waters.
There is a significant amount of illegal dumping into Union waters, which is the a cause of serious problems for European fishermen. We are concerned about our fishermen.
Another matter we put to the Commissioner, which is an issue high on the fishermen's agenda, is the matter of cod in the Celtic Sea. We have asked for increased quotas and catch from that sea. The marine institutes of Britain, France and Ireland put forward detailed scientific information to show that the stocking levels have improved. The Commission receives its own scientific data and it was due yesterday on the last day of June. We asked the Commissioner to revert to us as quickly as possible to see if an increase in catch could be allocated. At the meeting Commissioner Borg was non-committal on the subject. We pressed him very strongly in view of the available scientific data from the marine institutes of the three countries. All agreed the stock levels had improved. We have asked that those scientific submissions be given detailed consideration and that a decision is made. The Commission has produced a paper. We have asked for immediate financial aid from the European Union and we have outlined that very clearly. There is a Common Fisheries Policy and a European response is needed. Practically everybody at the Council of Ministers who had an interest in fisheries was pushing the same line, that initiatives are needed directly from the Commission.
I come back to the immediate nature of the needs of the fishing industry. The Minister spoke earlier about how other countries have different quota laws and it is very difficult for the Naval Service to regulate when boarding ships. The Minister also spoke of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, or IUU, and regulations to combat it coming in by 2010. I am talking about immediate measures.
I will suggest one such measure. We must receive EU funding but I have been told by fishermen that French and Spanish boats are working on diesel priced at 50 cent per litre, whereas Irish boats are working on diesel priced at 91 cent per litre. It seems the governments in question have implemented this measure on behalf of their fishermen.
An immediate measure which could be taken to help the fishermen and their fleet in this country is to consider harbour dues. This would be of direct benefit to the fishermen and could be looked at immediately as an instant help.
I do not know the differential in fuel price between countries but there is a specific measure in this country to assist fishermen with the cost of fuel. At the Council of Ministers meeting, as well as bilateral meetings, we put a range of proposals to the Commissioner for consideration. He took the views of all the different member states and he had to return to the college of Commissioners.
We pushed him very hard, outlining in particular that we get a very small share of the European fisheries fund. Above all countries, we deserve a special EU-funded package because of the very small allocation we have received over the years and that we would get, as currently structured, between now and 2013. We put the point to the Commissioner very forcefully, itemising particular areas where we thought funding could be put to very good use to deal with the immediate problems that affect the industry throughout the country.
What about harbour dues?
