It is unfortunate that some Deputies were caught off guard in regard to Priority Questions. It was only agreed at a late stage last week that the Dáil would sit today. Sinn Féin Deputies have not had an opportunity to submit questions. If they or any other Deputies have specific questions they would like answered I will happily try to facilitate them verbally or through e-mail.
Priority Questions
Milk Quota
Michael Moynihan
Question:1 Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the progress he has made on the issue of a European wide milk quota to alleviate the pressure of a super levy on dairy farmers here; the steps he has taken in securing a butterfat correction quota increase of 1.5% and 2%; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32328/11]
To be fair to Deputy Moynihan, he has raised this issue with me repeatedly in the House and outside it. He has similar priorities to me. We both have a concern that the Irish dairy industry may be subject to super levy fines next year if we are not careful.
Last year we narrowly avoided the imposition of fines. Many people made a lot of money last year by being over quota and we were lucky to avoid super levy fines. By mid summer this year I was concerned about the fact Ireland was more than 5% over quota for the time of year. We have been sending out consistent messages since then that it will be very difficult to get any political flexibility from other European countries to allow Ireland to produce over quota. That has proven to be the case.
As I stated in this House repeatedly, we have had bilateral meetings with Denmark, the Netherlands and, more recently, France, when there was a meeting with the Minister in Paris. Most recently, at the last Council meeting I had a bilateral meeting with my German colleague who happens to come from Bavaria and outlined in no uncertain terms why this was an important priority issue for me.
The last thing we want to do is fine progressive dairy farmers who are planning for expansion, growth and investment post-2015. My German colleague took my concerns on board but did not give any indication that Germany was in a position to support what is currently the only item on the table, namely the butterfat correction which would allow Ireland to produce between 1.7% and 2% more milk this year and still be under quota.
We are still being frustrated in our attempts to get common agreement amongst Council members and Ministers. We will continue to pursue the issue. In the meantime I need to send a very strong signal to farmers that they need to operate within quotas.
I thank the Minister for his reply. It is a major issue at farm gates. I hear stories every day of the week about people who have ceased milk production and dried off stock they have invested huge amounts of money in over the years. As the Minister said, such people are often progressive dairy farmers who are trying to make sure they are on the curve when quotas are abolished and the new system is introduced post-2015. They are currently at a huge disadvantage.
During the last Priority Questions a month or six weeks ago the possibility that butterfat could be adjusted was discussed. The issue seems to have receded. Some of the main players in Europe are reluctant to re-enter negotiations. However, some countries are hugely under quota. Ireland is hugely over quota. There are arrangements in place between dairy farmers. We have to apply huge pressure to correct the butterfat situation.
Post 1 January 2012 there will be a new presidency of the European Union. Perhaps the issue could be introduced to the agenda as a priority issue at the meeting of the Council of Ministers on agriculture or various other levels. The Minister stated he held discussions with various Ministers. He held discussions with the German Minister since the last Priority Questions, who will not negotiate. Are other like-minded countries in the same position as Ireland or will they be on 31 March?
Everybody has to advise people to stay within quota. Decisions that affect people staying within quota were taken at dairy farm level two or three years ago. I ask the Minister to outline to the House the possibilities when the new presidency takes over on 1 January. What partners do we have in Europe to push the agenda forward?
Even if a deal was done on butterfat correction it would only give us 2% flexibility. We are still above that rate, even though farmers have cut back significantly. It does not solve our problem but eases it somewhat. Any solution should not reward people for being massively over quota. People who have been careful and planned responsibly for expansion to operate within the quota system should not be at a disadvantage. The idea that we would fine people for planning for expansion but who produce slightly over quota is something we need to try to avoid and we are trying to do that.
The conversation I had with the Deputy on seeking a butterfat correction is still on the table and on the agenda for a number of countries, in particular Denmark and the Netherlands. Other countries were fined last year and supported us strongly. A number of new member states, in particular Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, see opportunities pre-2015 in terms of increasing dairy output.
A minority of countries in the Council would support us on this issue. Even France is willing to consider it in an effort to try to be helpful. The German Minister has not ruled it out but has outlined why it would be difficult for her to do it and sell it to German farmers and unions. We are endeavouring to try to make progress. The message to farmers must be clear. We need to reduce output to try to remain within quota if we are to avoid fines.
Fishing Rights
Thomas Pringle
Question:2 Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will recognise the traditional rights of fishermen of Inver Bay, County Donegal, to use draft ring net fishing as an artisanal fishery and to ensure they can continue to fish mackerel and sprat as they have done for over 100 years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32418/11]
I have only in recent days become aware of issues in regard to pelagic draft net artisanal fishing in Inver Bay, County Donegal following a letter and supporting documentation submitted by a fisherman late last week. I am very supportive, in principle, of providing for the reintroduction of traditional fishing methods around the coast, subject to ensuring that such methods are in compliance with EU regulations and do not adversely impact on other fish stocks, particularly wild salmon.
I will seek the advice of the Marine Institute on the possible unintended impacts of this method of fishing. In that regard, I will seek the views of my colleague, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, who has responsibility for salmon conservation, on the issues involved. I am advised that there appears to be no barrier to fishing for mackerel, herring and sprat using pelagic draft ring net artisanal fishing methods, subject to using the legal and mesh size and having applied for and received an authorisation in respect of herring.
The waters off the north-west coast are the subject of an EU cod recovery plan and additional EU technical conservation measures to protect cod, haddock and whiting. These regulations restrict the fishing gear and mesh size that may be used in the north west. These EU regulations do not apply to pelagic fishing where standard pelagic trawls are used with a mesh size of 55 mm or less.
I am aware that sprat are targeted in the bays of the north west by small trawlers using mid water pelagic nets. These boats also fish sprat further offshore in the area between St. John's Point, Bundoran and Doorin. The occurrence of sprat shoals is dependent on many things. The population is subject to wild fluctuations and a strong year class may occur every fourth year or so. Its survival may depend on many physical environmental features and the number of predators. In this case, it will be necessary to establish that the mesh size is in conformity with the provisions of the EU transitional conservation measures for the north west.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
My Department advertised in the Irish Independent in November 2010 for applicants for herring authorisations in the north west for 2011. If a fisherman did not make an application at that time, he or she would not have been issued with a herring authorisation. Other than the requirement for an authorisation — assuming that the fisherman is using a mesh size permitted under the EU transitional conservation measures for the north west — there is no preclusion in place to fishing for herring using a draft ring net.
I am currently reviewing the management arrangements for Irish herring fisheries. In June my Department asked the industry for its views and I am currently considering its responses in the context of the information on participation in the various fisheries being prepared by my Department. During the period of consultation which took place, artisanal fishermen from Inver Bay, County Donegal did not communicate to my Department the issues in respect of their specific fishery. Having recently received such a submission, I am happy to give it due consideration. However, there is nothing currently in place to prevent such fishermen catching herring once they have applied for and received a specific authorisation and subject to the mesh size being in compliance with EU regulation.
In Autumn 2010 my Department engaged in a comprehensive consultation process regarding the mackerel fisheries, including advertising in national newspapers. The arrangements put in place to support fishing for mackerel by boats under 18 m — as set out in section 6 of "Determination (No. 17) of the Need for an Authorisation for Certain Fish Stocks" — permit the catching of mackerel based on a monthly limit set following consultation with industry representatives. As for the other pelagic fisheries, the mesh size to be used for mackerel must be in conformity with EU regulation. I assure the Deputy of my commitment to have the technical issues relating to this gear type examined and to advise the applicant in respect of the fisheries in which he has expressed an interest.
I thank the Minister for his positive reply. I tabled this question because fishermen in Inver Bay who use traditional methods which have been in place there for over 100 years have been placed under severe pressure, particularly by the regional fisheries board. This is because — perhaps both fortunately and unfortunately — the bay is partly formed by the estuary of a river in which salmon spawn. The regional fisheries board has tried to claim that the individuals to whom I refer are also fishing for salmon when they are out trying to catch sprat and mackerel. However, they use completely different gear to fish for the latter and, therefore, the chances of their catching salmon are practically non-existent. It is important that the type of fishing in which they are involved should be recognised as a traditional method. I understand there is precedent in this regard because a type of gillnet fishery exists in west Cork. I welcome the fact that the Minister is going to consult the Marine Institute and the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte. I look forward to a positive outcome in respect of this matter.
We are trying to be constructive with regard to this matter. If we can facilitate fishermen who use traditional methods, particularly in respect of specific stocks which fall outside the TAC system, I would be extremely anxious to do so. Many restrictions are imposed on those involved in fishing in the context of effort, stocks, quotas and the tonnage that applies in respect of their boats. If we can facilitate some flexibility in respect of allowing the use of other methods of catching fish which do not impact on vulnerable stocks, then I would be anxious to encourage this. However, we must ensure that we do our homework properly. The last thing I want to do is provide an indication that it is fine for fishermen to invest and commence fishing and then be obliged to clamp down on their activities in six months time as a result of a decision made by the European Commission. What we do must remain consistent with the rules and the law. The reply I have given the Deputy is initial in nature and it suggests that significant opportunities exist if people want to pursue them.
Common Agricultural Policy
Michael Moynihan
Question:3 Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his negotiating position in relation to the 2014 reference year and 2011 activation clause set out in Commissioner Ciolos’ Common Agriculture Policy proposals in early October. [32329/11]
This question relates to the specific issue of the use of 2014 as a reference year for the new CAP proposals in respect of single farm payments. The Deputy will be aware that in advance of the publication of the European Commission's document on reform of the CAP, a great deal of concern was expressed to the effect that 2014 would be used as a reference year. That concern was realised when the document in question was published. In the period between the commencement of the lobbying effort in respect of this matter and the publication of the document, my officials and I engaged in intensive lobbying of the cabinet of the Commissioner on Agriculture and Rural Development. We indicated that what is proposed would give rise to major problems in Ireland and that we are extremely concerned that there would be a land grab prior to 2014 if the reference year was set in the future rather than — as has traditionally been the case — in the past.
There was partial acceptance of the argument we put forward because the Commission added a new section which stipulates the inclusion of 2011 as a "tie-back" year. In other words, if a farmer has eligibility in the proposed reference year of 2014, he or she can only be eligible for the single farm payment in the future if he or she made some claim for that payment in 2011. This is designed to stop people from outside the agricultural community coming in and buying up large tracts of lower value land in an effort to secure payments indefinitely into the future. In essence, the problem has still not been resolved. I remain concerned that in the build up to 2014 the leasing and conacre markets and, potentially, the afforestation market may be affected by the setting of the reference year in the future rather than the past.
Farmers should recognise that this issue remains the subject of much discussion. In that context, I encourage people not to make investment or long-term leasing decisions on the basis of the current reference year of 2014 or the current tie-back year of 2011. A great deal of negotiation remains to be done in respect of this issue.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Regardless of the complexity of legislation emanating from Brussels, it is amazing how quickly individuals interpret it in order to identify the difficulties which might arise for them.
The Minister referred to entitlements to single farm payments. I understand that the document published by the European Commission stipulates that an entitlement must be established. The difficulty I perceive in this regard is that some farmers — for family reasons or whatever — leased out their lands to third parties during the period leading up to 2005 or 2006. Thereafter, perhaps as a result of the death of a parent or for some other reason, a son or daughter may have returned to the family holding and begun farming the land in question. However, the entitlements relating to such lands remained with those who leased them during the period 2000 to 2002, inclusive. As a result, a farmer may have submitted a single farm payment application in respect of land of this kind but no entitlement would have been activated in respect of it because no such entitlement existed. What would be the position of such a farmer in respect of the proposed reforms?
There is a second matter about which I am concerned. As a result of the fact that there would have been no perceived financial gain from submitting an application for a single farm payment, a person who returns to take over his or her parents' farm and who bought stock and placed it on the land in 2006, 2007 or 2008 could not have activated an entitlement because no application was made. As per the wording provided in the European Commission's document, those in the two instances to which I refer would not have activated an entitlement in 2011. This assumes that the wording relating to 2011 and 2014 will stand when the negotiations are concluded. There are two groups of people, particularly those with difficult family circumstances, who would not be included under the Commission wording. Is there anything that can be done for these individuals?
The Deputy makes a valid point. There is also a third group of people affected and this comprises those who have entered farming for the first time. I refer to those who are serious about active farming rather than those who are buying land in order to lease it out and obtain payment in respect of it in the medium term. The people in the third group to which I refer will not have an entitlement in the current year, 2011, but may well be actively involved in farming in the reference year of 2014. We must facilitate active farmers who are working the land in the context of the choice of any new reference year. That fact is accepted by many of my counterparts in Europe with whom I have discussed this issue. To date, the focus has been on those who have existing leases on land, those who traditionally rented land and those who leased land under the conacre system — either from their neighbours or someone else — over a period of years and the fact that they would have obtained entitlements in respect of such lands. The main concern in this regard relates to the leases in question being broken by their landlords in order that they might maximise their own entitlements. We could not possibly agree to any package whereby those who are actively involved in farming and who are working land in respect of which entitlements should apply would be prevented from obtaining such entitlements.
Grant Payments
Luke 'Ming' Flanagan
Question:4 Deputy Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will confirm that in view of the fact that farmers may only include land which they own, rents or leases in their application for a single farm payment or area payment, the same payments will not be impacted upon if they were to continue to exercise their rights to cut turf on bogland which they do not own, rent or lease but merely have turbary rights to; if he will further confirm that in cases adjudicated upon by him, grounds available to a farmer as turbary rights were disallowed when included in applications for single farm payments and area payments; if he will give an assurance that payments to farmers will not be impacted by any issues relating to the cutting of turf on bogs be they special areas of conservation or not; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32708/11]
Deputy Luke ‘Ming' Flanagan raised this matter with me on the previous occasion on which I was present for Question Time. I am of the view that the reply I intend to provide is much more complete than that which I delivered on the occasion in question.
Applicants must declare all the land they farm in the particular year for the single payment scheme and the disadvantaged area scheme, be it owned, leased or rented. If, in addition, a farmer is a participant in REPS 4 and has a turbary right, he or she can obtain REPS payment on the turbary plot provided it is declared on the annual SPS application form and he or she has included it on his or her REPS 4 plan. Normally, land used for turf cutting, whether owned, rented, leased or the subject of traditional turbary rights, is declared as "other" or "bog" on the single farm payment application. Such land is not eligible for payment under the single payment scheme or the disadvantaged areas scheme. The Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht has primary responsibility for protection of special areas of conservation, SACs. Certain activities are restricted within SACs and can only be carried out with the consent of that Department. These notifiable actions vary depending on the type of habitat that is present on the site.
Where a farmer cuts turf on a bog plot where cutting is prohibited, he or she is liable to be penalised under cross-compliance if the non-compliance comes to light during a cross-compliance inspection or is cross-reported to my Department from the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. The two key elements in cross-compliance are the requirement for farmers to comply with 18 statutory management requirements set down in EU legislation on the environment, food safety, animal health, welfare, plant health and a requirement to maintain the farm in good agricultural and environmental condition.
The rate of on-farm inspection required for cross-compliance is 1% of those farmers to whom the statutory management requirements or good agricultural and environmental conditions apply. If an applicant is found to be non-compliant, sanctions are provided for in the governing EU regulations and those sanctions will be applied to the single payment scheme, disadvantaged areas scheme and REPS 4.
Next April, if a farmer in receipt of a single farm payment cuts turf, as has been done for hundreds of years, but the land is not declared in his or her single farm payment applications, will he or she be affected? If so, what financial penalties would be involved?
I read that legalistic answer so that it would be on the record for the Deputy, as he has asked for it several times. SACs have been in place since 1997. Raised bogs in such areas are protected. Ireland got a ten-year derogation from ending turf cutting on those raised bogs. Since 2007, we have been giving assurances to the European Commission that we will be consistent with the directives and stop cutting turf in SACs with sensitive raised bogs. The previous Government agreed to this. The European Commission has gone to court and won the case to enforce this.
If people are deliberately breaking the law, then there will be consequences from a cross-compliance point of view. That is how the system works. Deputy Flanagan is a talented communicator in this House. I encourage him to find workable solutions for the difficult situation of turf cutting in SACs that will be within the law. It might involve compensation or relocation of turbary rights. Instead of protest and inciting anger in people, I appeal to Deputy Flanagan to talk to the Minister who is proactive in this area to find an acceptable solution in what is a heated and difficult discussion.
I take the charge that I am inciting people as a bit of an insult.
Is it not accurate?
What would the Minister call one of his party's Deputies who got elected for saying he would sign his name in blood to oppose turf cutting bans? If that is not incitement, what is?
It should be clear to the Minister and to the Government that the ten-year derogation never existed. Fine Gael Deputies have said so in the media on many occasions. In fact, they claim there was a nod and wink to Europe but no official derogation. The Turf Cutters and Contractors Association, for which I am public relations officer, is attempting to find a solution. I will be in Cavan tonight meeting with turf cutters to find out what they believe is the best solution for their particular bog. I will be doing the same tomorrow evening in Clare and in Kinnegad on Saturday. At that stage, I will have met pretty much everyone who cuts turf on all of the 55 bogs in question. The Turf Cutters and Contractors Association will present its solution which goes along with what Fine Gael promised before the election.
Does the Deputy have a question?
Our solution contains three parts. First, there will be compensation, which very few people want. Second, there should be relocation of turbary rights which most people want. Third is re-designation which would involve taking part or full bog areas out of the SACs.
Thank you, Deputy. I call on the Minister.
On that, Deputy Frank Feighan said he would sign his name in blood. If that is not incitement, what is? Furthermore, he got elected on it.
I am not going to get into the politics of throwing a charge against an individual.
The Minister accused me of inciting people, yet Deputy Frank Feighan said he would sign his name in blood against the ending of turf cutting.
Yes, I said Deputy Flanagan was inciting people. What is he doing now?
Please, Deputies.
Deputy Frank Feighan said he would sign his name in blood. Is that not inciting people? It is a lie. That is what it is.
Deputy Flanagan must withdraw that.
What? I must withdraw the fact that we were lied to before the general election.
Please, Deputy.
Okay, I withdraw it.
Will Deputy Flanagan also allow the Minister to continue without interruption?
What about the fact that I was accused of inciting people? Is that acceptable?
Deputy Flanagan knows that a political charge can be made in the Chamber.
I did not have to answer this question. This issue is not my Department's responsibility. I am trying to help Deputy Flanagan by answering this question and giving a better understanding of the connection between cross-compliance and turf cutting.
What about inciting people?
I have asked the Deputy to be constructive in finding a solution for the 53 bogs affected and not to propose solutions that are not legally possible. The idea of re-designating large numbers of SACs——
They are not large numbers.
From my understanding, this will only raise expectations that will be impossible to deliver.
The Minister does not understand the problem. It was possible before the general election. Deputy Feighan promised us it would be done. He would even sign his name in blood.
It is easy to quote someone like that.
Can I get an apology for being accused of inciting people?
Legislation on incitement sees it as a serious matter. However, a political charge made in the House is a different matter.
There is a difference between me making a charge against a Deputy who can then defend himself immediately and the charge made by Deputy Flanagan against a colleague of mine who is not here to defend himself. This is not the first time Deputy Flanagan has done this to Deputy Feighan.
I have a DVD of Deputy Feighan making this promise about signing his name in blood if the Minister would like to see it.
We will move on to Question No. 5.
Deputy Feighan should be here in the Chamber doing his job instead of handing out Christmas cards.
There are six minutes for each question. We must now move on to Deputy Durkan's question.
What did Deputy Flanagan just say?
If Deputy Feighan was not as busy sending out Christmas and birthday cards, he might be here in the Chamber.
Deputy Flanagan is not here too long yet to make judgments on any Member.
Some people think they know it all.
Can we have a bit of order from Deputy Durkan?
Deputy Flanagan should learn a little more.
Populism can be a dangerous thing, a Leas-Chathaoirligh.
That is okay as well. I am not allowed to come back on that one.
It is Question Time.
Why did the Minister say that to me?
I said it to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
Populism. How did the Minister get elected?
On Deputy Durkan's question——
Populism and the bondholders. I am leaving the Chamber.
Go on and walk out in protest. Good man.
My daddy did not give me a seat.
Off you go.