Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 May 2009

Vol. 683 No. 1

Other Questions.

Animal Carcase Disposal.

Phil Hogan

Question:

47 Deputy Phil Hogan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the details of measures he will introduce to reduce the cost of animal disposal; when he will bring forward measures to address this issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20269/09]

Ruairí Quinn

Question:

51 Deputy Ruairí Quinn asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the status of the fallen animal scheme; the recommendations being made to farmers in the absence of the scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20184/09]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 47 and 51 together.

My Department's contribution to the fallen animals scheme ceased with effect from Tuesday, 14 April 2009. This was as a result of budgetary constraints and also reflects the greatly reduced incidence of BSE in this country. However, I provided continued financial support for the collection of certain dead animals, notably bovines aged over 48 months, for sampling, as required under the ongoing national BSE surveillance programme. The disposal of dead farm animals is subject to EU regulations, notably Regulation (EC) No. 1774 of 2002. These regulations require that animals, which die on-farm, must generally be disposed of through approved knackeries and rendering plants.

With the ending of the fallen animals scheme, the cost of collection and rendering for animals not covered by the new scheme is now a matter for negotiation between the individual collectors-rendering plants and their customers. Within the boundaries of legal requirements, my Department is making every effort to facilitate measures enabling reduction of costs in the rendering-collection system such as allowing cross-Border trade, permitting direct delivery by farmers to authorised plants, considering removal of some costs currently built into the rendering process and encouraging indigenous use of meat and bone meal, MBM, for energy.

Farmers may continue to use the existing collection network or, in the alternative, may transport dead animals by prior arrangement to approved knackeries, provided they transport the carcases in leak proof, covered containers or vehicles. Burial of fallen animals is only permissible under licence in remote areas, that is, islands, and listed mountain and bogland areas. Farmers who wish to bury animals on-farm should apply to their local district veterinary office for a burial licence. It is also a legal requirement on all keepers of bovine animals to notify movements of all bovines, dead or alive, off their holdings to my Department.

The fallen animals scheme represented poor value for the taxpayer and it facilitated the emergence of a cartel, which overcharged and excessively profiteered on the disposal of dead animals. The proof of this is the substantially lower prices paid in Northern Ireland for the disposal of animals. Will the Minister ensure that all impediments to licensed bona fide operators from Northern Ireland are removed in order that they can compete aggressively for business in the Republic and be licensed, provided they meet all the requirements, and that the Department adopts a proactive approach in this regard? Competition will drive prices down significantly. A number of these operators are being licensed but the Department needs to be proactive on this.

Sampling will still be required for animals aged over 48 months because of BSE. The cost associated with having personnel to carry out the sampling is substantial. I understand on the basis of a reply I received to a previous parliamentary question that the Department invested considerable funds training non-veterinary staff to FETAC level 5 to carry out post-mortem inspections of animals in meat factories but it never subsequently availed of the staff it trained. The cost of producing samples of animals aged over 48 months is excessive. It is a simple procedure, which involves scooping out brain matter, putting it in a test tube, closing the cap and sending it to the laboratory for testing. Significant savings could also be made in this area if the Minister had the will to tackle the issue. Has he plans in this regard?

With regard to sending material to Northern Ireland, ten knackeries have been approved by the Department and, to date, six licences have issued to companies in the North. Some product has been transported to Northern Ireland for rendering. I also understand that another knackery intends to start sending material to Northern Ireland shortly. Applications that were submitted by enterprises to the Department were processed and turned around very quickly. I can assure the Deputy that if any bona fide operator seeks a licence, there will be no delay in issuing such a licence once all the criteria are met. We will make sure of that.

The other point concerned testing. We are still subsidising the collection, segregation and preparation for sampling adult bovine animals — those are fallen animals over 48 months of age — and the preparation for sampling of certain categories of sheep and goats. We have provided for that in this year's Estimate. In dealing with this matter, we will be reducing costs in all respects. As regards our surveillance programme with the EU, we will ensure that every aspect of the collection of fallen animals over 48 months will meet with all the conditions we applied in the past as well.

Another important issue concerns meat and bonemeal. Together with my ministerial colleagues, Deputy John Gormley and Deputy Eamon Ryan, I have been engaging with relevant plants to ensure they will take up the opportunity of meat and bonemeal for the production of energy. It is ridiculous that over the years we exported such product to places like Germany. We want to see greater momentum given to that enterprise in this country.

Alternative Energy Projects.

Pat Breen

Question:

48 Deputy Pat Breen asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the number of hectares planted in the production of bio-fuels in each of the past six years; the breakdown of the crops planted; the number of hectares of each he expects to plant in 2009 and the breakdown of the crops planted; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20156/09]

Energy crops are relatively new to Irish farmers and are being considered as an alternative to more conventional farm enterprises. The total area of energy crops in Ireland has increased steadily since 2003, supported by incentives introduced by the Government to stimulate cultivation and subsidies to increase the use of bio-fuel in the Irish transport market. In addition, the decoupling of direct payments from production has afforded farmers greater freedom to switch to alternative enterprises, such as energy crops, without reducing the value of their existing single farm payment entitlements. The main possibilities for growing energy crops in Ireland are oilseed rape, hemp, willow and miscanthus. The number of hectares planted increased from 137 hectares in 2003 to 8,700 hectares in 2007 and declined to 4,100 hectares in 2008. I have arranged to provide the Deputy with the full details of the crops planted since 2003. As they are tabulated it makes sense to provide them in that format.

The market for energy crops is still in its infancy in Ireland. The increase in production in 2007 is mainly attributable to strong demand for oilseeds in the pure plant oil and bio-diesel markets. The cultivation of miscanthus and willow also showed a marked increase in 2007 following the introduction of grants by the Department to aid establishment costs. The decline in energy crop cultivation in 2008 reflected the sharp rise in cereal production in Ireland in response to soaring grain prices. The demand for grain encouraged Irish tillage farmers to plant more wheat at the expense of oilseeds. The total area sown to oilseed declined from just under 8,000 hectares in 2007 to some 3,000 hectares in 2008.

The outlook for energy crops in 2009 should be roughly similar to 2008 with overall production estimated to be in the region of 4,500 hectares. Adverse weather conditions affected the autumn planting of oilseeds and production is not expected to increase beyond the 2008 figure of 3,000 hectares. The cultivation of miscanthus and to a lesser extent willow is expected to reach 1,400 hectares in line with pre-planting approvals issued by the Department under the bio-energy scheme.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

The willingness of farmers to convert land to energy crops depends on a number of factors including profitability at farm level. Production can only be sustained in the long-term if energy crops generate comparable returns to more traditional outlets in the food and animal feed sector. My Department has a number of incentives in place to improve the profitability of growing energy crops. Under the bio-energy scheme, farmers who diversify into willow and miscanthus can receive establishment grants worth €1,450 per hectare to offset up to 50% of the initial set-up costs. The overall area planted under the scheme should exceed 3,000 ha by the end of 2009, which marks the completion of the three-year scheme. The Department has commenced a review of the bio-energy scheme to assess the need for a further scheme in future. In addition to establishment grants, farmers can also qualify for EU and national premiums worth €125 per hectare on areas sown with energy crops.

I should also mention the importance of incentives to create demand for bio-fuel feedstocks. The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources is providing over €200 million in excise relief up to 2010 to increase the use of bio-fuel on the Irish transport market. Plans have also been announced to introduce a new bio-fuel obligation scheme, which will ensure that a percentage target of transport fuels used in the State must consist of bio-fuels. The obligation will apply to fuel companies and will be a key component in achieving the EU target of 10% penetration of renewable energy in transport by 2020.

I am amazed at the Minister of State's reply. The question asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the number of hectares planted in the production of bio-fuels in each of the past six years, the breakdown of the crops planted and the number of hectares of each that he expects to be planted in 2009. In response to a similar question on 20 May 2008, the Minister provided a table of the number of hectares planted with crops for bio-energy purposes for each of the last six years. It was as follows: 2003, 137 hectares; 2004, 732; 2005, 2,590; 2006, 4,456.

The Deputy is expected to ask a question.

I am asking the question because the Minister of State is breaking from these figures completely. He is now back down to approximately 2,000 hectares for 2008. I am amazed to think that is all that has been planted for bio-fuels.

A question, Deputy.

I want to know from the Minister of State if we are going down the wrong road as far as these bio-energy crops are concerned. Will the Department do anything positive to correct that downward slide instead of achieving an increase in line with his green policy?

I thank the Deputy for his answer and his question.

Well, answer it.

It is good to look at all the information. I am sorry I cannot give the Deputy exactly what he is looking for because when the information was being collected it was presented in the form of a visual table. He will get it but it is unfortunate that he does not have it before him now. This is the end of a three-year scheme. The Deputy is right to ask the questions, including whether we are going in the right direction. These questions are also being asked in the Department.

For example, there has been a good take-up in miscanthus, more so than willow. Anecdotally, it seems people felt that miscanthus was less of a long-term commitment and that it could be grubbed up. However, the horticultural experts tell me that it is quite difficult to do so. Once one has miscanthus one has it for a while. One needs to be used to it and be sure of what one is doing. Willow is easier to get rid of but because it seems more wood-like, people think it is more permanent. These are questions that people are facing up to. Edenderry has been carrying out an experiment on co-firing with miscanthus on a larger scale to see whether there is a market there. It appears, however, that has not been as successful as was expected. Perhaps willow, which has not been so widely taken up, would be more effective in that regard because it has the scope for use as wood pellets and wood chips. In addition, it has more well-established uses. We are in new territory.

I wish to allow a number of other Deputies to contribute.

I, too, will be asking some of those questions.

What about willow?

Have bio-fuels fallen down the political agenda? What is the policy directive coming from this Government currently in terms of prioritising bio-fuels? If the rate of hectares is falling, can we deduce that there is a reduced political priority? Will this arise as part of the review of the programme for Government, which is imminent?

The programme for a new Government.

As the acreage is dropping, the figures speak for themselves. There is no doubt about it, but why is it dropping? The political drive to get renewable energy into the system by making it viable is the key point because it is not considered viable. The Minister of State referred to the viability of miscanthus versus willow. There was a huge uptake in forestry when grants and incentives were there, but it has slowed down. It is a permanent 30-year cycle, so it has nothing to do with that. We hope to have a bio-energy initiative with Bord na Móna and Coillte. Until such time as landowners are convinced that growing renewable energy crops is viable, they will not do it. Is it possible to take from these figures what is glaringly obvious — that it is not viable? Does the Government propose to redirect policy towards it?

There are factors that have a bearing on the uptake and one, as Deputy Sherlock stated, is its economic viability. The recession has had many knock-on effects, one of which is the reduction in the price of oil. The viability of planting and processing a crop and getting a return for the labour means that naturally it will be difficult to compete with a product which has been lying in the ground collecting solar energy over millions of years and just needs to be pumped out and refined to be ready for use. The economic issues will change as oil becomes more expensive and the phase we are in at present is that we need to put the infrastructure in place, even though it is more costly at present, so that when oil becomes unaffordable we will have an infrastructure that can be expanded and the skills to do so.

We are in a difficult period because we have to fund this transition and getting money to fund such a transition is difficult in a recession. We are not at the ideal by a long shot; we need to appraise the viability in the current economic circumstances and consider how this fuel will be used. There have been experiments on turning miscanthus into briquettes to try to compete with the wood-chip element in the renewable bio-energy sector and apparently they have been reasonably successful — I have not seen the details. This is the level of trial taking place at present and it is part of the bio-energy action plan which aims to increase the use of bio-energy in the heat, CHP and transport markets to 2020. We work with the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources in this regard.

Food Labelling.

Emmet Stagg

Question:

49 Deputy Emmet Stagg asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the reason the Féile Bia campaign has been replaced by a new campaign called Just Ask; the advantages this change will bring; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20190/09]

Decisions on marketing campaigns are primarily a matter for Bord Bia. In this case I understand that Bord Bia considered that a fresh approach was needed to raise customer awareness and transparency on the origin of food and supplier information when eating out. Féile Bia membership, which peaked at 1,500 food service outlets, had decreased in recent years to very low levels of participants. In addition, questions had been raised about its effectiveness.

The Just Ask campaign aims to encourage and empower consumers, when eating out, to ask for information on where the food on their plate, particularly meat, comes from and to encourage restaurants to provide this information on their menus. The marketing activities for the Just Ask campaign, which was launched in March, include targeted national and local radio and press advertising, on-line and print media activities and promotions targeting chefs directly. Research to date carried out by Bord Bia shows that over a third of the target group interviewed are aware of the Just Ask campaign and say it would encourage them to ask where their meats are coming from when eating out. That would indicate that Bord Bia's public awareness campaign is having a good impact at an early stage.

What is the overall cost of this scheme? If I understand correctly, and I seek clarification on this, the Féile Bia logo or emblem was replaced with the Just Ask campaign. If I was being a little cynical I would say that it probably cost approximately €200,000 to come up with the wonderfully succinct and insightful words "Just Ask". Has there been buy-in to the scheme from the Restaurants Association of Ireland?

As I stated at the start, the decisions on this relate to Bord Bia so I will have to ask it to get an answer to the Deputy's question.

With all due respect, on a point of order——

I do not have the information.

The Minister of State with responsibility for food is here to answer questions once a month and I tabled this question last Wednesday so with all due respect——

If I could finishing answering the question before the——

The Deputy rose on a point of order and the Minister of State can now reply.

It was not actually a point of order but I am not here to decide that.

It is for the Chair to determine but I thank the Minister of State for his assistance.

It was nice to hear all the same.

It was correct.

I am trying to be helpful.

The Minister of State might respect the fact that I tabled the question in the first instance and I did so in good faith.

Deputy Sherlock did not, actually. If he had asked that question we could have got him the answer but——

I am entitled to ask a supplementary question.

Indeed, and I wish I had some knowledge but all I can say is that the Just Ask scheme is far better value for money than the cost of running the Féile Bia scheme. This is not the only reason for the change and I hope Deputy Sherlock agrees with that. We were getting less and less buy-in to the Féile Bia scheme and we needed a reality check; we could not blindly continue with the Féile Bia scheme when of the 81 applications received in 2008 only seven restaurants met the criteria. It needed to be examined and reviewed and the outcome of that review has been a better value for money scheme.

I will not say that was the primary reason for it; it is really about empowering the consumer. There was a level of confusion among consumers. On the one hand there was Féile Bia, which was in Irish, but, on the other, it was not as widely applied throughout the country as it should have been and it was becoming increasingly irrelevant. The Just Ask scheme is a fresh approach and, as I indicated, it is receiving good support from the public.

What meats does this include? Does it include poultry and pork as well as beef? Will the Minister of State assure us that it promotes Irish produce? Question No. 111 tabled today also raises the point——

We have not yet reached that question.

——about the €2.5 million——

One should not anticipate.

It is linked because there is a €2.5 million allocation——

I am afraid it is not being taken with it.

——to Bord Bia. Is this what the money is being used for? Will the Minister of State comment further on this?

While the Just Ask campaign is primarily about meat, it is about all produce. The important question of labelling is dealt with by the Food Safety Authority primarily. Bord Bia has no remit to promote non-Irish food; at the same time it is not the authority that deals with control of labelling and this must be clarified. The Just Ask campaign is about Irish produce but it requires people to ask, as the name suggests.

I know they are not related to the restaurant industry but we see pages of advertisements due to the war between supermarkets. We see Bord Bia quality assurance signs on chicken, beef and fish. Those items that do not have it are conspicuous. I pride myself on becoming informed in restaurants and outlets. The Féile Bia scheme was not completely useless. I do not know why "Just Ask" could not have been added to the existing scheme. There was familiarity and an information campaign was required: why was this not done? We were half way there. If it was not working effectively it should have been improved rather than completely rejigged.

We have had discussions such as this previously and undoubtedly we will have them again. Much of the non-Irish produce coming into Ireland was going to catering. It is important to make a fresh start, which this is. The emphasis is on the new campaign, Just Ask, by which the public is mandated to establish where food comes from and who produces it. Restaurants are being urged to provide that information so people will not have to ask as many questions. It is important to point out that Bord Bia does not promote non-Irish produce, and the suggestion that the organisation might apply its funding to promoting products from outside Ireland carrying an Irish label is false. It is equally important to note that Bord Bia does not, nor is it required to, promote products from any other origin. Suggestions of that nature are misleading to consumers, as they have been in the media, and are extremely damaging to an industry that has come under enormous pressure in a difficult marketing environment. Bord Bia is about promoting Irish produce.

Would it not have been more financially expedient to use the guaranteed Irish label, which is universally identifiable and would have cost significantly less?

I was delighted to hear the president of the IFA, Mr. Padraig Walshe, on the radio this morning asking people to buy Irish produce. The reason Mr. Walshe can do that but neither I nor the Minister, Deputy Brendan Smith, can is that the use of State money for the guaranteed Irish campaign is not allowed under EU rules. I have met representatives of the Restaurants Association of Ireland and others to make that point. It is a case of horses for courses. The Government and Bord Bia, the agency with the remit in this area, have a responsibility to provide the type of quality assurance required but in the case of a guaranteed Irish scheme, such as was mentioned by the Deputy, we can go so far but no further. We can promote EU produce but a guaranteed Irish campaign would require non-taxpayers' money. Thankfully, there is a willingness on the part of stakeholders such as the IFA and the Restaurants Association to put private money behind such campaigns. Once we have the quality assurance and the guaranteed Irish assurance from those who can do it, we can combine the two to get the message across that buying Irish means buying the best quality. That is the ultimate result.

What guarantee does the Minister have?

Disadvantaged Areas Scheme.

Billy Timmins

Question:

50 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the position regarding his consultations with the European Commission in relation to the ongoing review of the disadvantaged areas; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20305/09]

The Commission is currently conducting a review of disadvantaged areas across the Community, having been mandated by the Council of Ministers to conduct the review. The object of the exercise is to establish a Community-wide system, which will allow comparisons between regions on the basis of eight bio-physical criteria rather than the socio-economic criteria which were used when defining the current disadvantaged areas. This is a very important issue for Ireland as the total area designated as disadvantaged is almost 75% of Ireland's total land area.

From an economic perspective the disadvantaged areas scheme is particularly significant, contributing to the support of in excess of 100,000 Irish farm families, whose ability to farm is restricted by the physical environment, in particular, the impact of the prevailing wet cold climatic conditions in Ireland. I can fully understand and appreciate the current proposal to move from the existing socio-economic criteria for defining disadvantaged areas to a system of definition based on physical and climatic criteria. However, despite the significant progress made between officials of the Commission, the Joint Research Centre and my own Department in addressing the scope of the new criteria, there are still areas which need further attention to ensure the new criteria may accurately reflect the reality of farming in Ireland.

If, as seems to be the case, physical characteristics will be used to classify disadvantaged areas, the crucial one from our point of view is soil drainage, taking into account the impact of water logging. While the proposed criteria include climate, it appears only to provide for the impact of drought on farming activities in the EU. In my view, there is also need to provide for the climate in north-western Europe and the impact of heavy rainfall on soil moisture conditions and the adverse impact this has on farming activities for long periods of the year, resulting in the land being unsuitable for grazing or machinery traffic — what is referred to technically as trafficability.

The other important criteria from Ireland's viewpoint are soil and slope. Currently there is insufficient information available to classify areas using the soil characteristics of texture/stoniness and rooting depth. The lack of detailed data across all member states is recognised by the Commission in this communication and, as the Commission is already aware, a comprehensive soil classification survey is currently being undertaken in Ireland, following completion of which the required information will be available.

The Minister, Deputy Brendan Smith, has raised his concerns regarding the criteria at the Council of Ministers and has argued strongly for due recognition to be given to the restrictions which our climate places on farming activities for long periods of the year. Our officials have had numerous meetings with Commission officials and, currently, a series of working groups involving all member states, together with Commission officials and officials of the Joint Research Centre, under the chairmanship of the Czech Presidency, is ongoing. I remain committed to working closely with the Commission to progress work in this area in order that the necessary analysis is completed, allowing appropriate proposals to be brought forward to Council.

In the budget last October, Fianna Fáil's mask slipped in respect of its continuing commitment to the disadvantaged areas scheme. There was a significant reduction in payments to farmers. I believe the word "review" is code for a reduction in further funding for the scheme. Is last October's budget the thin end of the wedge? What is the commitment of Fianna Fáil to the disadvantaged areas scheme as a policy instrument to retain the maximum number of people and farm families working on the land? Will the Minister publish and place in the Oireachtas Library all the documentation that has been the subject of negotiation with the Department on the criteria that have been published by the Commission? Doing so would provide clarity on what is informing the Government's position in these negotiations. Is it a financial issue or is it, as the Minister might want us to believe, based on the criteria outlined by the Commission? Will he place all the details about this matter in the Oireachtas Library?

The best illustration of the commitment of the Government to ensuring that Ireland continues to benefit from the disadvantaged areas scheme is the work being done at Council level by the Minister, Deputy Brendan Smith, and departmental officials to ensure that the new criteria — there is some justification for the new criteria — are such that the reality of farming conditions in Ireland is taken fully into account. I can assure the Deputy there is an absolute commitment to the advantages that exist in terms of income to farm families — I mentioned that 100,000 Irish farm families benefit from this scheme — and to ensuring the maximum number continue to be in a position to avail of it. However, this is an EU review which many people, including many Irish people and farming organisations, consider to be long overdue. There is a very good case from an Irish perspective for bringing forward criteria which are similar or even-handed across Europe and which take account of not only regional disparities but also the reality of soil conditions, the difficulties imposed by slope and the huge difficulties imposed on Irish farmers by the high level of rainfall.

I hope I have interpreted the Minister's response correctly. Is the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food insisting at European level that all areas currently within the scheme will be retained? Will new natural handicap criteria allow new areas to be included?

That issue does not arise at this stage. What is currently under way is an examination of the criteria for judging the areas to be included. Having closely examined them I am of the view that, assuming we can succeed in having the climatic and soil conditions which apply in Ireland kept to the forefront, the outcome will be advantageous for Ireland. This review is an attempt to ensure similar criteria are in operation throughout the European Union. In the case of Ireland, issues such as climate, rainfall levels, wet-weather logging of soil and the lack of accessibility for long periods of the year make farming conditions particularly challenging. The review process is examining the criteria that ought to apply to the disadvantaged area scheme with the objective of ensuring they are more evenly applied across the entire Community. From our perspective, there are considerable advantages in this process.

I support the Minister of State's argument regarding rainfall and land conditions. In my own immediate area, all the animals continue to be housed, even though it is 20 May, at considerable expense to farmers. It is vital that funding is available to assist them. However, the Department has weakened its own position in lowering the funding available to commercial farmers. While 100,000 farmers will receive assistance, commercial farmers are subject to a substantial decrease in support. Will the Minister of State review this situation? It will be easier for him to argue the case in Brussels if he is seen to be sincere in his objectives. Withdrawing funding from commercial farmers will not help his case.

An important proof of our commitment in this area is the fact that we have one of the most generously funded disadvantaged schemes in the European Union. There is an acknowledgement at European level that our commitment to the scheme supports our views on the matter. I take Deputy Crawford's point regarding commercial farmers. However, the true importance of this scheme is that it provides a source of income for 100,000 farming families working in the worst land area conditions in the State. Our aim is to ensure these families continue to benefit from the scheme.

Every Deputy is aware of particular individuals who claim they were unfairly excluded from the most recent review in regard to disadvantaged areas. We will make the case in regard to soil conditions and other criteria. It is important to bear in mind that the review process is at a relatively early stage. Criteria are being reviewed with a view to coming forward with a scheme at European level. At this stage, the onus is on us to ensure that criteria which are important from an Irish perspective continue to be part of the consideration of this important matter.

Common Fisheries Policy.

Tom Hayes

Question:

52 Deputy Tom Hayes asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the consultation he has had with stakeholder groups with regard to the European Commission’s Green Paper on future reform of the Common Fisheries Policy; the issues he will pursue at the next Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20268/09]

The Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, is the fisheries policy of the European Union. It was first put in place in 1983 and has been subject to reviews every ten years, the most recent in 2002. The next review is formally scheduled for 2012. On 21 April 2009, the European Commission published a Green Paper on future reform of the CFP in order to launch a consultation with member states and stakeholders and to initiate a broad public debate on future CFP reform. A summary of this consultation process will be published in 2010. It will be followed by a legislative proposal to the Council and the European Parliament to be adopted in 2011, with a view to its entering into force in 2012. It is clear that every aspect of the CFP is up for review and will require detailed attention.

An exchange of views on the Green Paper will take place at the next Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 25 May 2009. The Green paper identifies five structural failings of the current policy, namely, fleet over-capacity, imprecise policy objectives, a decision-making system that is focused on the short term, a framework that does not give sufficient responsibility to industry, and a culture of poor compliance. It goes on to focus on improving the management of EU fisheries, and issues such as supporting coastal communities, relative stability and marketing are raised. Other areas covered include aquaculture, financial support and externalities. I welcome the Commission's Green Paper on the reform of the CFP and acknowledge the importance of the process we are embarking on, which will culminate in the shaping of the strategic blueprint for the European fishing industry for the next decade.

In the current economic climate, we need a policy that simplifies and reduces the administrative burden and, at the same time, strengthens and supports the industry's capacity to maximise employment in coastal communities dependent on fishing. This will be a key objective for Ireland. We will pursue initiatives that deliver and sustain jobs in coastal communities rather than those that promote the concentration of wealth and delivery of excessive profits for a small number of large international businesses. The Minister, Deputy Smith, has already outlined these priorities for Ireland at last month's Agriculture and Fisheries Council and he intends to address them in greater details at next week's Council on 25 May.

It is critical that we have a broad and in-depth review of the policy that takes account of the views of all interested stakeholders. The CFP review has been on the agenda at several formal and informal meetings with industry, most recently at the Sea Fisheries Consultative Council meeting on 7 May. The Federation of Irish Fishermen, FIF, has indicated its intention to pursue a process to develop its position in the matter and I await the result of its deliberations. I intend to engage in a parallel process of consultations with all stakeholders, including the FIF, to inform Ireland's position on the review.

In the context of the discussion document on the Common Fisheries Policy, has the Minister of State discussed at Commission level the desirability of uniform sanctions for breaches of the policy? Does he support the idea of Community support for policing Community waters so that Irish fishermen do not feel disproportionately discriminated against in respect of the meagre resources of the State to police substantial tranches of Community waters?

The point the Deputy raises is being addressed in parallel by the Commission. He is aware of the proposals that have come forward in that regard to ensure a level playing field, elements of which we discussed at a committee meeting. We regard some of these elements quite positively while we have a somewhat negative view of others.

Does the Minister of State support uniformity?

The question of uniformity in regard to the application of sanctions, as well as the question of resources, are issues we will continue to raise at European level, as we have done thus far.

Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.

Top
Share