Michael Moynihan
Question:1Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine the progress he has made on the milk quota and butterfat correction issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14692/12]
Priority Questions
Milk Quota
This is not the first time Deputies Moynihan and Kirk have raised this issue, understandably so, because it is an important one.
In the past year my Department and I have been extremely active in raising at every appropriate opportunity the question of an adjustment to the milk quota regime. We have made determined efforts to secure a soft landing for all member states in the lead-up to milk quota abolition in 2015, as envisaged in the 2008 CAP health check agreement. I have discussed the matter extensively with other EU Agriculture Ministers, including in bilateral meetings with my Danish, French, German, Estonian and Finnish counterparts. Furthermore, officials from my Department have raised the issue at EU level meetings and at bilateral meetings with other member states. We will continue to pursue it at every opportunity.
Among the options being discussed in relation to a soft landing are the front-loading of the remaining quota increases, a reduction in the super levy fine that may be imposed, a further reduction in butterfat correction levels, or a type of EU flexi-milk arrangement which would operate provided EU production overall was within quota. Most attention has been focused on the butterfat correction which would be the most straightforward option from a procedural position. In December a coalition of member states involving Ireland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium and Cyprus formally put a specific proposal to the Special Committee for Agriculture for an adjustment to the butterfat correction mechanism.
Unfortunately, the Commission has consistently resisted attempts to reconsider this issue, as it has resisted attempts to revisit the outcome of the 2008 CAP health check generally. That view is supported by a number of member states which, unfortunately, are influential ones. I have spoken about this on numerous occasions. While it is important to recognise that there will be no magic solution to milk quota problems we may have in the remaining weeks of this quota year, farmers must do everything they can in the next ten days or so to remain within quota.
We will continue to pursue this agenda next year, proactively and aggressively at times. There will be a review of the milk health check towards the end of this year. I assure Members that the country will lead the discussions in an effort to try to alter the soft landing policy that is not currently delivering a soft landing for at least six EU member states.
I thank the Minister for his reply. We have discussed this matter in the House on a number of occasions over recent months in anticipation of the superlevy threat that is hanging over the dairy sector in Ireland.
Denmark assumed responsibility for the Presidency of the European Council in January last. Significantly, Denmark, the Netherlands, Austria, Cyprus and Luxembourg exceeded their dairy quotas in 2010-2011, resulting in a superlevy bill of €55.5 million having to be paid. In this current year, Europe will be an estimated 5.5% under quota. It is clear that quite a significant number of dairy farmers will be in serious difficulty if one is to judge from newsletters issued, for instance, by Glanbia, one of the major dairy companies in the country. In Leinster and a good part of Munster, where a significant volume of milk is produced, they are seriously over quota. In many instances, it will be a bridge too far to make the sort of adjustments that seem to be necessary between 7 March and 31 March. Has the Minister a responsibility, having regard to his reply to questions way back in October where the issue of the butterfat adjustment was very much under consideration? Would it be timely to bring forward an initiative in that regard?
The initiative is under way in that regard. I have mentioned the butterfat issue at practically every Council meeting I have been at. We have been taking Ministers aside on an informal basis and also setting up the formal bilateral meetings that I outlined in the answer to the question.
The problem is there is no mechanism to force the EU to accept a butterfat correction. The reason we have chosen to focus on butterfat correction is that the Commission has the capacity to introduce that measure without having to seek a vote in Parliament or in Council. It could have introduced it through regulation, which would have given Ireland breathing space of 1% to 1.5% extra on top of our current increase of 1% in quota. Unfortunately, that has not been possible, mainly because big powers, such as France and Germany, do not want to see this happen.
Countries are saying that there is a formal review of the health check coming up at the end of 2012 and that is the time to discuss these issues. Despite the fact that Ireland and the Netherlands, Denmark, Luxembourg and Cyprus, which have strongly supported us on this, have been pushing hard, the Commission has stated essentially that it is not up to it to change this and if a majority of member states come to the Commission and say they want it changed, the Commission will look at it. Unfortunately, we do not have that majority at present. That is the political reality. There are countries which do not want to see any more flexibility in the quota system because they think that will impact on price. Ireland disagrees with that, but we do not have sufficient numbers in Council to be able to force a change in policy.
Has the issue of the butterfat adjustment been brought up directly with the Danish Presidency and, if so, what has been the response?
It has been brought up directly with the Danish Presidency but it has also been brought up repeatedly directly with the Commissioner by me. The Commission position is straightforward. The Commission states that the Council voted in 2008 on a milk health check which guides policy, and if the Council wants to change that, the Council can do so but that must come from Council, not from the Commission. The Commission has in place a review mechanism at the end of this year for the health check policy and it states that is when we will have an opportunity to do this. Make no mistake, we are trying to progress this issue. We are pushing as hard as we can.
I have been consistent on this and I do not think anyone can accuse me of raising expectations around butterfat correction levels. I have been consistent on this, that this would always be a difficult political ask but that we would continue to try to push the door open on this issue, and we are continuing to do so. However, for this quota year, it will not be a factor. That is the reality.
I call Deputy Colreavy.
I have one brief supplementary.
Is it a "Yes" or "No"?
It will be very brief. During the health check discussions in 2008, the Minister's predecessor in the Department, Deputy Brendan Smith, raised this issue of the butterfat adjustment. At that stage, quite clearly, it entered as a major consideration in any adjustment and in any situation where quota would be exceeded, such as there possibly will be in our case. What is the position having regard to the fact there was an acceptance of the point in 2008?
The position is clear. Unless the Commission can be persuaded to change the regulation on the treatment of butterfat levels, they will remain as they are. This puts Ireland under pressure, which I acknowledge. When I last looked at the figures, we were 0.006% under quota. There has been a very early grass growing season this year - we are about one month ahead of schedule in some parts of the country. This is putting farmers under huge pressure to try to control milk output in order to stay within quota. While I agree with the Deputy in terms of what he wants to do, I have a responsibility to give a realistic assessment of what is possible politically in the next couple of weeks.
Animal Diseases
Michael Colreavy
Question:2Deputy Michael Colreavy asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine the steps he has taken to prevent the Schmallenberg virus spreading to farms here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14691/12]
The Deputy raises the important issue of the Schmallenberg virus, SBV, which was confirmed in December 2011 following the birth of deformed lambs in the Netherlands. Its manifestation in adult cattle had been under investigation in Germany and the Netherlands since the summer-autumn of 2011. It has now been recorded in eight member states - Germany, Belgium, France, Luxemburg, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Spain and Italy - on about 2,000 farms in total. It is not what is called a notifiable disease as it does not meet the OIE - World Organisation for Animal Health - criteria for notification. There are currently no trade implications for the movement of animals or products within the European Union and animals may move subject to normal health inspection and certification systems.
The Schmallenberg virus is newly emerged and we are still trying to understand it fully. The information available on it suggests it is part of the Simbu sero-group of viruses which are mostly found in ruminants in Asia, Australia, Africa and the Middle East and primarily transmitted by insect vectors, most commonly midges, with no direct transmission from animal to animal. Vertical transmission is suspected, given the infections of foetuses. The virus can be identified through PCR testing. There is currently no blood test available for large-scale testing, but work is in place to develop one. No vaccines are available.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The European Commission, in collaboration with member states through the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, has published a guidance document on its website in which it sets out full details of the knowledge to date on the virus and procedures for providing surveillance data for the European Food Safety Authority which has been tasked with providing a full report on the virus by the end of May. An interim report is due by 31 March. The Commission is also working to dissuade third countries from placing restrictions on trade, as, in line with OIE recommendations, there is no justification for a ban on milk or meat as these commodities do not pose a risk for Schmallenberg virus transmission. The Commissioner briefed yesterday's Agriculture Council on this point.
There is no evidence to suggest the disease is transmissible to humans. To date, people who have been in close contact with infected animals, for example, animal workers, farmers and veterinarians, have not reported any unusual illness. The European Food Safety Authority, the European Centre for Disease Control and the animal and human health authorities at national level are collaborating to ensure rapid detection of any change in the epidemiology of animals and humans.
There is no evidence the virus is present in this country. Equally, there is no proof in the absence of tools for sero-surveillance that it is not present here. My Department has notified relevant persons such as veterinary staff and PVPs to report and submit samples of any animals showing unexplained clinical symptoms of SBV or suspect birth defects. Samples from 63 animals tested to date in the Department's laboratory from animals presenting with clinical signs that may be associated with infection have tested negative.
Applying additional controls at entry points would not add anything by way of increased bio-security. Such a move would also be contrary to European animal health law. Single Market rules preclude member states from interfering with intra-Union trade in animals, except on legitimate animal health grounds. Accordingly, animals are free to move in trade in the Union provided they are certified as being compliant with animal health rules. My Department always urges importers to ensure imports are fully compliant with EU rules and that they operate to the highest standards of bio-security to ensure no diseases are introduced to Ireland via such imports or the vehicles transporting them.
We will continue to monitor the developing situation, maintain close contact with the Commission and our EU colleagues, including in Northern Ireland, and review and modify our response, as appropriate, in the light of new information that becomes available or with the development of new testing capabilities.
I find it extraordinary that a disease which can damage international confidence in a nation's agricultural output is not notifiable. I, therefore, encourage the Minister to press hard to ensure it is made notifiable.
What emergency plans will be put in place? Are there discussions taking place with our counterparts in the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure the virus will be kept off Irish farms? I am sure the Minister agrees that the international perception of the quality of Irish agricultural produce is all-important. The USA is thinking of opening up markets and the Minister is travelling to China to discuss increasing our market share there. Therefore, the international perception of the purity and quality of Irish agricultural produce must be protected. This is one of the risks to it. I suggest other risks are presented by the proposed trials on the genetic modification of potatoes and fracking in agricultural areas in north Leitrim and County Cavan.
Will the Minister press to make sure the virus is made a notifiable disease? Will we have plans in place should it be identified on a farm in either the Six Counties or the Twenty-six Counties?
I have discussed this issue with my counterpart in Northern Ireland. It is a good example of where we can take a fortress Ireland approach. Diseases do not respect borders, but our geographical location is sometimes fortunate in that we are isolated from the British mainland and Europe and thus receive protection in terms of the spread of certain contagions. My understanding is that the Schmallenberg virus spreads via flies and midges on the skin of animals. There are risks in this regard in that efforts by many farmers to increase herd size have led to an increase in the importation of calves. As such, I am very conscious that we must review the controls in place at ports. However, I am also realistic about what is possible in terms of identifying the disease given that there is currently no blood test for it, thus making it difficult to test cattle and sheep for infection.
I have asked my officials to put together a clear guideline document which will inform persons who import livestock from other parts of Europe or the United Kingdom of the areas in which the Schmallenberg virus has been identified. This will help us to be more targeted in importing livestock. While the numbers of detected infections seem to be decreasing across the European Union, this may simply be a consequence of the approaching end of the lambing season.
Grant Payments
Luke 'Ming' Flanagan
Question:3Deputy Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine the reason after dealing with 11 members of his Department’s staff and after being promised since early December that their agri environmental options scheme payment would be processed, that a person (details supplied) has still not received payment; the reason his Department has yet to process payments for more than 2,000 farmers in respect of 2010 payments; if he will outline the problem be it technical, is it resources, is it lack of accountability that has caused these delays, in view of the fact that farmers are now in their third year of the scheme and still unpaid for the first year and the situation has gone on for two years; his views that if the work was to be done by hand without computer or photocopier, all 8,000 applications should have been processed by the 11 staff members listed in the details supplied; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14593/12]
By way of background, the situation in regard to payments under the agri-environment options scheme, AEOS, is that the European Union regulations governing its administration require that full and comprehensive administrative checks, including cross-checks with the land parcel identification system, LPIS, must be completed before any payment can issue. EU audits have made it absolutely clear that compliance with the regulations must be strictly adhered to and that all checks must be passed and eligibility conditions met before payment issues. This means that individual payments may not be made until all aspects of a farmer's application are in order, all outstanding documentation provided and all queries resolved.
AEOS represented a departure from the traditional agri-environment scheme and presented a significant administrative challenge for the Department and farmers alike. Particular difficulties arose in regard to the redigitisation of land parcels and the submission of receipts in respect of capital investments. Furthermore, it was necessary to develop a computerised payment system that would facilitate payment not only for year one of the scheme but for each of the five years the scheme will run. While this development work delayed the commencement of the initial part-year payments by four months, it facilitated the commencement of the first full-year payments to clear cases in a timely fashion. Indeed, payment in respect of 2011 commenced before the end of 2011 to applicants who had successfully passed the administrative checks.
The AEOS application of the person named was received in my Department on 17 May 2010. The actions selected by the applicant included species-rich grassland and traditional hay meadow, both of which are classed as area-based actions. Under the scheme's terms and conditions, these area-based actions must be carried out on full LPIS parcels, as recorded by the Department. The area-based actions chosen by the person named were not on full LPIS parcels and, therefore, required digitisation. An amendment form was submitted by the applicant to the single payment section, SPS, to have the area-based actions on the AEOS application redigitised. However, following completion of this digitisation, discrepancies were discovered between the SPS areas declared and found. These discrepancies were satisfactorily investigated and have been resolved. Payments in respect of 2010 amount to €894.93, comprising the first 75% instalment, issued on 28 February 2012, and the 25% balancing payment of €298.03, issued on 1 March 2012.
I must interrupt the Minister. The remainder of the reply will appear in the Official Report.
I do not normally read long replies but the Deputy asked about a specific case and I wished to give a specific answer and there is a lot more detail on that case. I have been frustrated by the roll-out of some payments relating to the agri-environment option scheme, AEOS. There have been genuine reasons for this and I assure the Deputy I have been pushing staff in my Department as hard as I can to get these issues resolved. They mainly revolve around the fact that mapping pertaining to applications for the single farm payment did not match mapping related to applications for AEOS. It was necessary to resolve this issue and then redigitise the maps for both single farm payments and AEOS schemes. This has taken time and has been frustrating. While I am unhappy about this, now that the mapping issues have been resolved it will mean that in future years, people will get payments early.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
In regard to payment for the 2011 scheme year, a number of queries were identified on the capital investment forms and receipts submitted by the person named. A letter issued to the individual on 23 February 2012 in regard to these queries and they have been also satisfactorily resolved. The 75% payment totalling €3,749.99 in respect of 2011 issued to the person named on 12 March 2012 and the balancing 25%, totalling €1,249.99, issued on 14 March.
My Department has made every effort to assist farmers in regularising their applications and has devoted extra resources to dealing with query cases. However, in many cases the issues associated with individual applications, as with the application of the person named, require redigitisation of land parcels. This is a complex issue which can impact not only on a person's agri-environment application but also on his or her single farm payment or disadvantaged area scheme payment, or both. While these complexities can have an impact on individual cases, I am sure the Deputy will recognise the success of my Department in making timely payments under a variety of different schemes. In the case of the single farm payment, for example, while the earliest payment date provided for under EU rules was 1 December last year, I successfully sought the approval of the Commissioner to have advance payments made as and from 17 October. This was the earliest possible legal date for making payments, it being the start of the new EU financial year.
That said, I am conscious of the importance of payments to farmers' incomes and every effort is made to resolve queries as quickly as possible. At this stage €6.033 million has issued in respect of the initial part-year payment to the 7,681 applicants who have been cleared for payment. A further 1,092 cases remain unpaid. In these cases, the particular difficulties have been identified and the Department has made contact with the applicants to outline the nature of the query and the actions required to facilitate payment. I have given the highest priority to finalising all of these cases as quickly as possible.
In addition, €14.262 million has been paid to 3,720 of the 8,236 applicants remaining in AEOS I who are due a payment in respect of 2011. Unpaid farmers in year two are largely those with problems associated with their capital investment claims. My Department is currently dealing with queries associated with capital investment claims already submitted or is urging farmers to submit the necessary documentation as quickly as possible. Payments in respect of both years will continue on an ongoing basis as queries are resolved.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I note that apart from my constituent, others also contacted me about this issue. When people rang the Department, it was accepted that they had not provided incorrect information or anything like that. It was accepted that it was a problem within the Department, that it would be sorted out within a couple of days and that the people would get their payments. My constituent rang the Department repeatedly and was told the same thing again and again. The individual contacted the Department at least 11 times and was told about the problem with digitising. Although the Department accepted that my constituent had not provided incorrect information and would be paid, the individual concerned still was not paid.
I do not know whether the Minister is familiar with the television programme, "Little Britain". One of the characters it features is a person who works for a travel agent. Every time a customer asks for something, the person working behind a desk looks up and says, "the computer says No". This is what is happening in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Even though it is accepted that a problem exists when a human speaks to a human down the telephone line, on the replacement of the telephone receiver, the computer system takes over again and the computer says "No". That cannot be acceptable and makes a joke out of civil servants.
First, it is not acceptable if this has happened.
If someone from my Department tells a farmer that he or she will be paid within days, I expect that to happen. I note that last year, payments in general in my Department were way ahead of any previous year on record. I refer to the timeliness of payments such as disadvantaged area payments, single farm payments and those AEOS payments that could be made on time. They were significantly ahead of the previous year.
A specific problem arose by which the Deputy's constituent or client was frustrated, and understandably so. I believe that approximately 1,500 people were in that category. I was not happy about this because it led to a perception that my Department was not dealing in an efficient way with payments in general. I have tried to change this and the AEOS team has been in my office on numerous occasions to try to find a way to get this job done quicker. The issue has pertained to mapping, the fact that the Department tenders out the digitisation services for that mapping, as well as the interaction between the Department, farmers and the company that provides the digitising for the Department. All I can tell the Deputy is the likelihood of a repeat of such delays is extremely slim now that maps have been digitised and full data are available on a computer screen.
If Deputy Luke ‘Ming' Flanagan wishes to ask another question, he should be very brief, as we are running out of time. I apologise but the question had a lengthy reply.
This does serious harm to the reputation of civil servants. The constituent with whom I was dealing now has a highly negative view of civil servants, which is not right because it is not the case across the board. As the Minister responsible, Deputy Coveney must guarantee this does not happen again. More importantly, the person concerned is a citizen who was demeaned by this process. Will the Minister write to the individual in question and state this will not happen again on his watch? I am sure the person would be satisfied with such a response.
In the first instance, it is important to place on record that this person has been paid.
That is correct.
The issue is that there were delays in respect of the payment. Such delays should not have occurred but there were genuine reasons for them. I would certainly not criticise the staff of my Department in that regard. The latter have worked overtime in trying to issue these payments.
How is it possible to make 11 mistakes in a row?
The issue arose in the context of a process problem which related to changing maps, in the first instance, and then digitising those changes. Delays arose as a result of the problem to which I refer. I accept that it may have taken longer than should have been the case to arrive at a resolution in respect of this problem. However, that resolution will ensure that there are unlikely to be delays in respect of AEOS 1 or AEOS 2 in the future because digitised maps are now available to the Department and to the farmers concerned.
What happened in this case was a classic teething problem. We may have further such problems in future when we move to a new CAP, which has the potential of bringing with it an entirely new set of environmental schemes. We need to learn lessons from the AEOS experience in order to try to minimise the likelihood of a recurrence of delays such as that under discussion. On the whole, my Department is more efficient now than it ever has been in the context of issuing payments. A particular issue arose in this instance which is unfortunate but we are trying to correct matters.
The Department is using-----
Before we proceed, I remind everyone that there are six minutes per priority question. Those six minutes include two minutes for the Minister's initial reply. With co-operation from Members, I am sure we will make some progress.
Fisheries Protection
John Browne
Question:4Deputy John Browne asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine if his attention has been drawn to the unsustainable fishing practices by Iceland and the Faroe Islands for mackerel in the north east Atlantic; the steps he is taking to protect the interests of the Irish pelagic fleet; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14725/12]
I thank Deputy Browne for tabling a question on this extremely topical matter. I have set out for the House on numerous occasions the background to the mackerel dispute with Iceland and the Faroe Islands, most recently last week during a Topical Issue debate with Deputy Harrington. I have also set down the importance of the mackerel fishery for our fleet and the serious concerns we have about the current unacceptable situation.
It is clear that the irresponsible actions of Iceland and the Faroe Islands cannot be allowed to continue unchecked and we have to deploy all effective means to persuade them to re-examine fundamentally their position in this matter. I have called for and broadly welcome the EU Commission proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the European Council which will allow for the introduction of trade sanctions against third countries engaged in irresponsible or illegal fishing activities which may lead to depletion of the fish stocks.
In conjunction with my UK colleagues, I placed this issue on the agenda of Monday's EU Fisheries Council. I took the opportunity to explain to my EU counterparts that this mackerel crisis relates to four issues, namely, jobs, economics, sustainability and, most importantly, fairness. I made it clear that EU member states cannot accept the Faroe Islands' and Iceland's unjustifiable and unsustainable fishing of mackerel stocks. Ireland and Norway share those stocks with the Faroe Islands and Iceland. I received strong support from Commissioner Damanaki and Ministers from other member states which have been impacted by this for my call for the EU to fast-track the adoption of effective trade sanctions against Iceland and the Faroe Islands for continuing unsustainable fishing practice. I also made clear that Ireland is a strong supporter of Icelandic accession to the European Union. Given that it is another island in the north-east Atlantic, I am of the view that Iceland's interests and those of the EU would be best served by it being a member of the Union. That said, I made it clear at Council that I find it difficult to accept that we could move ahead, in good faith, in opening a fisheries chapter in the EU's accession negotiations with Iceland while the issue relating to mackerel remains unresolved.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
I received support from Commissioner Damanaki and fellow Ministers for my position in relation to fast-tracking trade sanctions against both Iceland and the Faroe Islands. Some member states, including Germany, also expressed concern about opening the fisheries chapter in the EU's accession negotiations with Iceland in the current context.
I consider that we have now reached a point where the EU, working in partnership with Norway, must set out actions it is prepared to take in order to make it unacceptable for Iceland and the Faroe Islands to continue their current irresponsible fishing activity. I am satisfied, after these discussions at Council this week, that there is a strong commitment from both Commissioner Damanaki and fisheries ministers of other countries that have been impacted upon to pursue vigorously and urgently available actions that will be seen to be proportionate and will be effective.
I thank the Minister for his reply and I recognise that for 2012 he secured for fishermen the same quota which obtained in 2011. However, there are serious concerns among those in the north west that the unsustainable fishing practices being engaged in by fishing vessels from Iceland and the Faroe Islands will eventually destroy the industry here. In a joint statement issued on 16 February last, Commissioner Damanaki and the Norwegian Minister for Fisheries, Ms Lisbeth Berg-Hansen, said "In spite of five rounds of consultations in autumn 2011 and early 2012...it is particularly disappointing that neither Iceland nor the Faroe Islands really engaged in the negotiation process." Has there been any movement in the interim? Have the two parties in question been encouraged to return to the table in order to engage in the negotiation process in a meaningful way?
Is it the case that the Commission has proposed that sanctions should only relate to mackerel being imported into the EU?
That is tantamount to doing nothing as 95% of the mackerel exports are sent outside the EU.
What I have been doing with this issue, I do not do it lightly. We have made statements that I am sure make some people in Iceland uncomfortable and angry but we cannot stand by and allow the plundering of a hugely valuable stock, worth €1 billion in terms of quayside value to the European Union, Norway, the Faroe Islands and Iceland. There have been changes in the migratory pattern of mackerel which has resulted in stocks moving north to Icelandic and Faroese waters, and the European Union accepts that there must be an upward reallocation of mackerel quota to Iceland and the Faroe Islands. What is being sought is none the less totally unrealistic.
The EU, in an effort to achieve a deal, offered a 2,000% increase in Iceland's quota. It was at 0.3% and the offer was made to increase it to 7%. In addition, the Faroese were being offered a quota of 8%, having previously caught 4.7% or 4.8% of the quota. We are talking about offering a combined 15% of a €1 billion quota to countries that would previously have had approximately 5% access to the quota. The European Union has been more than generous in trying to find a resolution based on encouraging responsible fishing. Nevertheless, last year Iceland caught approximately 150,000 tonnes of fish from a recommended catch of approximately 630,000 tonnes or 640,000 tonnes. That is approximately 23% of the catch. This country would historically have had 0.3% or 4,000 tonnes of the catch but it decided to catch 150,000 tonnes last year. That country encouraged vessels from other parts of the world to help it catch large volumes of fish.
It is totally unsustainable for us to allow this type of fishing of the most valuable stock in the Irish fishing industry. I will do what I have to in order to protect the industry's interests on the issue. We are taking the current approach to attempt to encourage future dialogue. We have had five rounds of negotiations on the issue in the past 12 months but got nowhere. The European Union must show some teeth at this stage, and that is why I am pushing the Commission and Council, and the reason I have got strong support from member states such as the UK, Germany, Portugal, Spain and the Scandinavian countries to fast-track sanctions.
Is the Minister happy to support the European Parliament fisheries committee, which is led by our own MEP, Pat "The Cope" Gallagher, in initiating broader sanctions on Iceland and the Faroe Islands with regard to all types of fish and fisheries products?
Pat "The Cope" Gallagher is on a twin-track approach with me. We are both trying to increase the pressure. Sometimes we need to rattle cages to get things done. If we do not do what we are now doing, in two years people will be screaming and roaring because a mackerel quota will have been halved for Ireland. This quota is worth at the quayside, or in terms of landed fish, approximately €106 million per year to the industry. We must act now to try to force a resolution on the issue in order that we can progress with positive issues with Iceland, including accession to the European Union, which I hope can progress apace when we deal with the mackerel issue.
Sugar Industry
Michael Colreavy
Question:5Deputy Michael Colreavy asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine if he will provide a stimulus for the sugar industry here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14690/12]
I do not need to read a script as I am very familiar with the sugar industry as it was and, I hope, as it will be in future. Last summer I had two professional feasibility studies done on the building of a factory and relaunching a sugar industry in Ireland. This would be a sugar and ethanol industry. The groups which financed and drew up the feasibility studies did a good job in progressing a serious discussion on this issue.
For the past 18 months the European Union has experienced a serious shortage of sugar. At one stage, the price of processed sugar reached approximately €800 per tonne or twice the level at which it stood when Ireland exited the sugar business at the time of the EU reform of sugar policy which has been subsequently proved to be flawed. The European Union's sugar quota system will remain in place until 2015 and Ireland has been compensated for staying out of the sugar business until that year. The Commission is proposing to abolish sugar quota from 2015 onwards, which would allow Ireland to recommence processing sugar if it was commercially viable to do so. The rule of thumb, as the feasibility studies show, is that the price of sugar on the European or global market needs to exceed €500 per tonne for processing sugar in Ireland again to be a commercially viable proposition. We would also need to invest €300 million or €400 million to build a processing plant. If the price were to fall below €500 per tonne, the numbers would be difficult to stack up.
It is important that we do not provide subsidies to start up the sugar industry again only to find we must continue to subsidise it to keep it alive. As someone who delivered substantial amounts of sugar to a former factory in Mallow, I hope we will re-establish a sugar industry in this country, but it must be a commercially sustainable business. I believe this to be a strong likelihood and I am strongly supportive of the proposals. The industry, however, must stand on its own two feet commercially.
I am aware of the Minister's interest in sugar beet. I view this issue from the perspective of creating an infrastructure to support job creation. One of the groups to which the Minister referred maintains that up to 5,000 jobs could be created. In addition to producing 150,000 tonnes of sugar annually, the sector could also help Ireland to achieve its 10% target for bio-fuels by producing 50 million litres of ethanol annually. A notable change in recent times was the indication given by the European Commissioner for Regional Policy, Johannes Hahn, that the European Union could provide support to reopen the Irish sugar beet industry.
While I note the Minister's comments on the changes that may take place after 2015, it is vital that we are ready and at the starting gate by that date. Will the Minister progress the process by engaging in preparatory talks and work and seeking to attract interest in this exciting proposal?
I concur with the Deputy. If we can access funding to cover the capital costs of building an infrastructure that can facilitate a sugar industry, we should consider the proposal. My responsibility is to ensure that post-2015 Ireland will have the capacity, from a quota point of view, to produce sugar again if it is commercially viable to do so. This will be challenging. While the Commission is proposing the abolition of quotas for sugar in 2015 in line with the abolition of milk quotas, the proposal is not supported by the majority of member states, most of which are seeking an extension of sugar quotas until 2020. While I am a strong supporter of the Commission's proposal, I am also a realist who accepts that a compromise date of 2017 or 2018 may be agreed for the abolition of quotas. Ireland has been compensated for staying out of the sugar production business until 2015. If the sugar quota mechanism is extended beyond 2015, the quota will have to be increased to address the shortage of sugar in the European Union. I will, therefore, make a strong case for allowing Ireland to access quota from a production point of view post-2015. It will be a political challenge to do that, but we will endeavour to do it until quotas go altogether, which will allow us do as we please.