Seamus Kirk
Question:1. Deputy Seamus Kirk asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the advantage to milk producers of the milk quality assurance scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [55818/12]
Priority Questions
Dairy Sector
The development of a dairy sustainability and quality programme comes against the background of ambitious plans under the Food Harvest 2020 report to increase dairy production by 50% in the period to 2020, and the need to find a home on international markets for this additional production.
We are taking a series of steps on a number of levels to prepare for this. State agencies, the Department and companies are working together to restore new markets in areas such as Asia, the Middle East, Russia and Africa. We are also developing a common brand, Origin Green, across the food industry generally. This is about differentiating Irish food from food produced in competitor countries. Essentially, it is a sustainability claim backed up by data that are internationally accredited in respect of how food is produced in Ireland. Part of building that brand requires a sustainability and quality programme for primary producers of dairy projects. This is why, in last year's budget, I announced that I wanted to see the rolling out of a quality or sustainability programme among the 18,000 dairy farmers in the country to ensure we could stand over our collective dairy industry and say we produce milk to a certain standard. This will not be some kind of inspection-based witch-hunt of farmers; it will be quite the opposite. We will roll out the programme in the same way that the carbon-footprinting programme has been rolled out for the beef sector. By the end of this year, 32,000 beef farms across Ireland will be carbon-footprinted. When we sell a steak, not only will we be able to put on the label the traceability claim indicating the farmyard from where it came, we will also be able to tell buyers the carbon footprint of the animal that produced it.
We want to provide similar sustainability claims for dairy production in Ireland. Bord Bia is working with all the interested parties and farming organisations to ensure we get buy in from farmers and that we insulate the Irish dairy industry from price volatility in the future on the basis of quality and the data we collect which can prove sustainability.
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. In his preamble to the points he made about the proposed scheme, he said the background to this is Food Harvest 2020 and the projected increase in diary production in Ireland. I understand Teagasc has prepared expansion plans for the dairy industry and the plans indicate it will be expensive to expand. This industry, by its nature, is capital intensive and there is a low margin return on the money invested in it. When the inevitable price volatility that will arise for the dairy sector is injected into the mix, any proposal that will increase costs for the farmer, or a combination of farmers in partnership arrangements, is dangerous territory to approach.
Is the model of the proposed scheme a template taken from somewhere else? Has it been modelled on a template in some other jurisdiction across the Community? For instance, will the authorities north of the Border have a parallel scheme running alongside our proposed scheme? The core question is the additional cost that will be imposed on farmers who will be stretched financially to meet the expansion objectives set out in Food Harvest 2020.
The best way farmers can insulate themselves from the price volatility that will happen in the future is to ensure Irish product get differentiated from other product. Let us not forget that more than 85% of all the milk we produce is exported in various forms, be it infant formula, skimmed and semi-skimmed milk, cheese, yoghurts and all the other products in which milk is an ingredient. If we are to be able to demand a higher price for our product in the future, which we will need to do, and move away from being a commodity producer of volume to being a quality producer of volume, targeting the top 10% price area in the new markets we are exploring, we have to be able to stand over the way in which our food is produced. The sustainability and quality programme will not cost farmers a great deal of money, in fact it will help them to run their businesses more efficiently. If a farmer is using less water, has more feed conversion efficiency and more efficient grazing management, his business will be more efficient and sustainable. The combination of those two factors will improve the standard of dairy farming in Ireland, which will be beneficial for everybody.
In the context of the capital investment farmers have to make, we will make more than €10 million available to dairy farmers next year in the form of the TAM scheme, which is half of the overall scheme as such, to help them with the costs of expansion, growth and upgrading their equipment.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
Environmental sustainability is an increasingly important issue in the marketplace for many multinational dairy and food operators, many of which now have sustainability as a core part of their corporate strategies. During my trade missions to China and the US in 2012 it was clear that the sustainability and quality messages have a strong resonance both with potential customers for Irish food products and with potential investors in the Irish agri food sector.
Developing a unique selling point for Irish food products is a critically important element of the national strategy for the development of the sector. It is particularly relevant in the dairy sector where we will need to maximise market returns for significantly increased production in competitive markets worldwide. Ireland is well placed to develop a national brand image based on a reputation for high quality dairy products, and on its mild maritime climate, plentiful supplies of water, grass based production and an already positive green image.
In that context, earlier this year, Bord Bia launched its “Origin Green” programme, which establishes a framework within which Irish food companies can have their green credentials independently measured. This will be a critically important element in the development of the Irish food sector in the coming years and its promotion on international markets. The key is to build independently verifiable metrics, which can be used in the marketplace, around Ireland’s already positive green image.
It is equally important to develop an independently accredited sustainability and quality programme at farm level for the dairy sector as part of that overall strategy to enable the sector point to verifiable attributes in maintaining and expanding its market share. There is also a strong correlation between the measures needed to improve environmental sustainability and to improve hygiene and other quality practices on farm, and those needed to reduce the costs of production at farm level and improve profitability.
In that context, and following extensive consultations with stakeholders in the first half of 2012, I announced in June that Bord Bia would begin detailed work on the development of a national sustainability and quality programme for the dairy sector to be used as a key element in marketing and promotional efforts on international markets. The programme will provide an independently accredited framework for operating best practice quality and sustainability principles on Irish dairy farms, and an objective and uniform mechanism for measuring compliance with these principles. It will also provide a vehicle for encouraging continuous improvement in production standards on Irish farms, underpin the marketing of Irish dairy products internationally and provide additional assurance for potential investors in Ireland.
Stakeholders are currently engaged in detailed technical discussions on the development of the programme, under the aegis of a technical advisory group convened by Bord Bia to progress the issue, and I hope it can be finalised in the near future.
Agriculture Schemes Expenditure
Martin Ferris
Question:2. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his views on the impact of budgetary cuts on farm programmes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [56052/12]
As this is a fairly broad question, I will address the issues that might be most pertinent. There has been some criticism since the announcement of the budget that we have targeted certain schemes unfairly and I want to give the Deputy the rationale for why we did what we did. I will deal with the beef sector first.
For the past five years we have had a suckler cow welfare scheme which has been a popular and extremely good scheme. It has significantly improved the welfare standards within the suckler herd and it has provided very valuable data around breeding programmes and fertility within herds to Irish Cattle Breeding Federation, ICBF, which is very useful for planning for the future, breeding programmes and so on. That was a five year scheme and this is the fifth year of it. It has come to an end. I had signalled that I would not be able to continue the suckler cow welfare scheme indefinitely into the future because we do not have the money to do it and it has come to the end of its five year term. I would have had to have put a new scheme in place and get approval from Brussels for that. Instead we decided to put in place a smaller, more targeted scheme to replace the suckler scheme for the moment, which will cost us approximately €10 million a year and which will pay farmers €20 rather than €40 an animal. We are asking them to continue to supply the kind of data on breeding and fertility they previously would have been providing to the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation, ICBF. We are asking new entrants also to provide that data for that money.
It is important to say in terms of the beef sector, because it is misunderstood, that next year we will spend almost as much on the beef sector as we spent this year. This year we will spend €25 million on the suckler cow welfare scheme in addition to approximately €2 million connected to beef discussion groups which started half way through the year. Next year we will spend €10 million on this new scheme. We will spend €10 million on the existing suckler cow welfare scheme where the payments will be paid next year in respect of calves that were born in the second half of the year, and we will spend €5 million on beef discussion groups on this sector next year. That is €25 million that will be spent on suckler beef next year which is not a significant difference from what was spent on that sector this year, although I accept the make-up and design of those payments are different. I will address one or two of the other sectors related to the sheep sector and DAS payments when I get an opportunity to do so later.
I thank the Minister for his reply. He is aware that farm incomes have fallen by 22% up to November of this year. That is an average payment of approximately €18,000 which is well below the industrial wage. I am sure he is also aware of the plight of the weaker farmer, which includes farmers in the suckler welfare scheme, those on previous REP schemes and so forth, and the fact that such schemes were instrumental to the viability of that type of farming. Notwithstanding the tremendous work regarding the provision of data and so forth, the suckler scheme has had a huge impact on the quality of calves being born and in terms of the finished product, and everybody benefited as a result.
It is not the remit of the Minister's Department, but the farm assist scheme has been cut by approximately €8 million. The farmers in that scheme are the most marginal and they are struggling to survive and care for their families. These cuts will have a detrimental effect on that type of farming in particular because one will find that the farmers in the suckler welfare scheme and some people involved in sheep farming are also dependent on farm assist. While the Minister might try to make up that loss another way, perhaps by compensating for the situation in regard the suckler welfare scheme, the farm assist being cut as well will make it almost impossible for these type of farmers to survive.
There is a genuine concern about ensuring that farmers on relatively small farms in very disadvantaged areas are provided with enough support to keep them on the land. That is the reason, in terms of the savings we must make in the disadvantaged areas scheme, we have excluded farmers in mountainous regions from any of those savings to ensure nobody farming in a mountainous area - that is 32,000 out of the 100,000 - will face any reduction in their incomes. Regarding the low land disadvantaged area farmers, instead of reducing the rate for everybody, we have reduced the eligible hectarage for people to again protect smaller farmers. In other words, instead of claiming the payment on 34 hectares as a maximum it will be claimed on 30 hectares as a maximum. I have tried to prioritise the most disadvantaged farmers, that is, the people on the mountains and the smaller farmers within the disadvantaged areas scheme, DAS, in lowland areas. A total of 73% of people in disadvantaged areas will be unaffected by the reductions and the remainder will see a reduction of an average of about 11% but those decisions were made to protect those with holdings and the most disadvantaged people within DAS areas. The same applies to the suckler scheme. Those who apply for the new suckler scheme in terms of the data transfer scheme will automatically get €20 per cow for the first 20 cows.
The average size of a suckler herd is 16 cows while the average size of a suckler herd in the suckler cow welfare scheme is 18 cows. We are trying to prioritise smaller farmers. If we have moneys left over after that, then we will give it to the farmers who have more than 20 cows. I believe there will be some money left over to give top-up payments to farmers with 30 to 40 suckler cows.
This was the third year of the three-year sheep grasslands scheme. We have decided to continue with the scheme, which will be paid for by unspent moneys under pillar 1. While we have reduced the cost of it from €18 million to €14 million, we have made up for that by introducing a discussion group, similar to the ones that have worked so well for the dairy sector, which will bring farmers together to discuss how they can improve their businesses and make more money in the marketplace. We will spend €3 million on these discussion groups next year. The total spend on the sheep sector next year will be more or less the same as this year's. I have worked hard to achieve this, as I see the sheep sector as a vulnerable area.
Harbours and Piers Funding
John Halligan
Question:3. Deputy John Halligan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine further to Parliamentary Questions Nos. 521 and 522 of 4 December 2012, when a decision will be made in relation the potential inclusion of Dunmore East Harbour, County Waterford, under the 2013 Fishery Harbour and Coastal Infrastructure Capital Development Programme; if he will confirm where Dunmore East Harbour sits in relation to other competing priorities; if his attention has been drawn to factors (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [56183/12]
My Department administers the fishery harbour and coastal infrastructure capital development programme every year. Dunmore East fishery harbour centre is one of the six designated fishery harbour centres which are owned, managed and maintained by my Department and, as such, it receives funding annually on foot of the programme.
My Department continues to support the harbour's development with funding provided for maintenance, development and upgrading works each year. Indeed, expenditure under the programme for Dunmore East since 2007 has been in the order of €4 million. This is in recognition of the valuable contribution the harbour makes to the fishing industry as well as the local community in terms of the support the harbour infrastructure provides to the development of the tourism industry and the local economy generally.
Dunmore East fishery harbour centre provides a dedicated and essential service to our fishing fleet. Both local and visiting fishing vessels, including vessels of significant dimensions, avail of the harbour facilities at Dunmore East. I am happy to report the investment in Dunmore East fishery harbour centre in recent years is bearing fruit. Indeed, the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority's records indicate a year-on-year increase in fish landings in recent years.
My Department's officials host a harbour users' forum regularly and meet with local stakeholders and harbour users. This forum provides a platform for harbour users to air their views and gives my officials an opportunity to hear at first hand the concerns and suggestions of the people using the harbour facilities. As recently as July of this year, the Dunmore East tourism group, which plays an active part in the harbour users' group, formally complimented both the appearance of the harbour and the good work being done there by my Department.
The need for dredging works at the harbour has been recognised by my Department. Reports commissioned have indicated that 80% of the harbour sediment contains tributyltin, TBT. Unfortunately, the cost associated with the disposal of dredge is approximately €5 million. This is a figure we cannot afford immediately but I am conscious of the need to dredge the harbour. We are examining the best way of dealing with this as safely as we can given our budgetary constraints. The total harbours budget this year was €7 million and the cost of cleaning Dunmore East is €5 million. The Deputy can understand the difficulties I have.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
This represents a significant expenditure in the current economic environment and I can confirm that my Department's engineering division has engaged consultants to examine and report on a number of alternative options in terms of the structuring of the works and the outlay involved. I expect to have the report in early 2013 and will assess at that stage how best to proceed.
Future investment at Dunmore East and the five other fishery harbour centres will of course be considered each year in the context of available Exchequer funding and overall national priorities. In early 2013, I expect to be in a position to identify projects for inclusion under the 2013 fishery harbour and coastal infrastructure capital development programme at each of the six fishery harbour centres.
Twenty-five years ago, up to 50 fishing boats worked out of Dunmore East employing hundreds of fishermen, with hundreds more employed in fish-processing plants around the harbour. Over the past decade, however, this long-established fishing industry has been under threat from restrictions designed to protect stocks. The local fishermen's co-operative is struggling enormously with EU fish quota restrictions, an aging fishing fleet and poor fish prices caused by low demand due to the recession. As fishing vessels become more technologically demanding, additional pressure has been put on resources and infrastructure. Reduced catches put pressure on employment in the processing sector. Several fish factories have already closed in Dunmore East over the past four years.
Dunmore East Harbour is suffering from inadequate infrastructure to address its potential needs. No dredging of the harbour has taken place for 17 years. Consequently, larger vessels cannot access the harbour. Silting has reduced the depth of the approach under the synchrolift. Despite the fact that it has a lifting capacity of 200 tonnes, it is only suitable for vessels with a maximum draft of about nine feet. Hence, many vessels have to divert to Cork or Howth for docking. This poor access has had a devastating impact on the local fishing fleet.
Since the recession hit, several hotels and restaurants in Dunmore East have closed. There is a significant scarcity of work and little or no investment in local industry. It is well recognised that the average income in the fishing village is below the national average. The local community has suffered significantly in the past several years, with a 12% decline in population. Without a properly functioning harbour, we may as well close down Dunmore East.
There is only one minute left.
Will the Minister reconsider dredging the harbour there? Although he has acknowledged in the past that dredging works in Dunmore East are a priority, it is not possible to wait another five years for this to happen.
This will have to be just a headline answer as there is only half a minute left.
The reality is that nothing can be done if one does not have the money. We have taken on consultants to examine the options-----
The harbour has a turnover of €10 million and we are asking for a €4 million investment which could increase that turnover and, in turn, bring more money into the Exchequer.
The Deputy is asking for more than half of my total harbours fund. I simply do not have it. If I had the money, I would be spending it on this. This is one of the harbours that has priority when it comes to dredging investment.
Fish landings at Dunmore East are actually increasing every year. Quotas are significantly up this year and it is my job to negotiate another good deal on the quotas next week. The stocks of cod, haddock, whiting and herring in the Celtic Sea are all up. It is not as bad as some people make out.
I agree there is a significant problem in the harbour and it needs to be dredged. I will do it when I can afford to. In the meantime, we will have to put a plan in place to do what we can do.
Common Fisheries Policy Negotiations
John Browne
Question:4. Deputy John Browne asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the position regarding the common fisheries policy review; the possible implications for Irish fishermen; when he expects this to be concluded; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [56051/12]
Before we continue, I must let Members know I had a tasty piece of sole before I came into the Chamber. I hope it came from Dungarvan.
Did the Acting Chairman have a bit of sole or a bit of soul?
Sole is one of the species whose stock is under pressure in the Irish Sea.
The Acting Chairman should not have eaten it then.
I am glad I did something good.
I am hoping to get the best deal I can for fishermen next week in a whole series of areas, particularly with regard to prawns in the Irish Sea and area VII generally. As part of that, fantastic work has been done by the Marine Institute. One of the stocks under pressure is sole. I hope the Acting Chairman feels guilty now.
I am sorry to have added to the pressure.
I hope he enjoyed it because it might be the last one he gets.
It was lovely and I recommend it.
Deputy Browne has been in this ministry before and will know the preparation required for the negotiations on total allowable catches, TACs, and fishing quotas. These preparations have been completed this year in an impressive manner.
There has been much talk about getting the reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy done during the Irish EU Presidency. I am equally focused on the Common Fisheries Policy. We want to get a deal for all countries but one that will also shape policy to ensure the Irish industry can survive and grow. One of the key issues under discussion is how we deal with discards.
At the moment in many of our fisheries up to 40% or 50% of the fish caught are being dumped over the side, dead. They are either juvenile fish or in some cases adult fish. We need and we will find solutions to that and I hope the industry will work with me in the change process.
We are moving towards what is termed maximum sustainable yield in how we determine quotas each year. The idea is that there is a set formula now based on data collection and linked to total allowable catch which can measure what a fish species can take in terms of the amount of fish caught each year to ensure that the stocks can survive and grow. We are trying to apply maximum sustainable yield, MSY, calculations to as many of the stocks as we can and to have enough data to do that by 2015. We are trying to apply it to all the stocks with sufficient data by 2020. That is part of the programme.
The other issue relates to regionalisation of decision making. This is something we are supportive of because we are keen to see countries fishing in Irish waters making decisions on the management of stocks in Irish waters rather than others, but we also want the protection of the Commission to ensure that Ireland does not get outvoted or outnumbered in a regionalisation structure on decision making. For example, we want to avoid a scenario whereby the French and Spanish could gang up on Ireland and make decisions on fish stocks in Irish waters. That would be unacceptable. Only when there is a unanimous decision on a regionalised decision-making process will we support it. Otherwise we want to be able to go back to the Commission, which is essentially there to support small nations.
The challenge is to find common ground with the European Parliament. I will spend a good deal of time in Brussels talking to people in the European Parliament about how to ensure that the Council, which is represented by Ministers, and the European Parliament can come together in a co-decision process to find a compromise position on the future of the fishing industry and to try to get that job done by the end of June next year. I believe it will be possible to do it but it will be demanding.
I thank the Minister for his detailed reply and I wish him well at the negotiations in Brussels next week. I imagine he will have the fishermen and the fishery organisations in tow. It is important to the 11,000 people employed in the fishing industry around the country that the Common Fisheries Policy review leans towards Irish fishermen. They believe that in the past they have not got the best possible deals. Does the Minister believe he will be in a position to conclude the review during the term of the Irish EU Council Presidency?
The Minister has been pursuing the issue of discards, among other issues, since he came to the Ministry. Does he have any other countries on board supporting him on the issue of discards?
In the area of regionalisation one size does not fit all for Irish fishermen but it is an important issue on the agenda.
We worked hard during the Danish EU Council Presidency, which was before the current Cypriot Presidency, to get a Common Position on discards by the end of the Presidency, which was the end of June this year. There is a basic agreement in principle on how to address discards. However, dealing with the pelagic sector is different from dealing with the whitefish sector and there is a recognition of this, in particular in the whitefish sector, in which there are mixed fisheries. For example, off the south coast of Ireland at Dunmore East if one is catching cod, one is also likely to catch haddock and whiting in the same net. When adult fish species are the same size and a fisherman has a quota to catch two types but not the third, what does he do when he catches all three in the one net? These are complex problems that we must try to solve through more technical measures and more targeted fishing gear. It is one thing to deal with the juvenile fish issue. One can deal with it through measures such as mesh size to allow smaller fish to escape, but in mixed fisheries where one is likely to catch multiple species in the one net because the fish are roughly the same size there are complex problems relating to the management of discards. We are trying to find flexible ways of doing that, minimising discards and ultimately eliminating them altogether. I believe we will be able to do that.
It will be possible to do this before June but it will be challenging because there are deep divisions on some of these issues between member states, some of which are driven by the sustainability arguments while others are driven by the fishing industry. I maintain that they have a common interest and it will be our job during the Irish Presidency to try to bring the two sides together and to agree compromise positions.
Land Reclassification
Luke 'Ming' Flanagan
Question:5. Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his plans for Castlerea Town Trust, Cow Park Trust, County Roscommon; his position regarding appointing new trustees to such a trust; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [56184/12]
I am pleased that the Deputy has asked this question because we discussed it some weeks ago. I am pleased that I have managed to bring the issue forward since that discussion. I wish to make clear at the outset that my reply relates to the public trust set up in 1919 under the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts. To avoid confusion, my Department refers to it as the Castlerea Public Trust because there is another private trust bordering the trust in Castlerea. The Castlerea Public Trust land is registered on folio No. 13684 County Roscommon in the names of the trustees.
Public trusts vest the trust land in the trustees and provide that day-to-day operational matters relating to the public trust are dealt with by the trustees, appointed from time to time. As Minister, I retain certain residual powers, mainly set out in section 30 of the Land Act 1950. These powers are to appoint the trustees; to alter or amend the terms of the trust; to agree to proposals from the trustees regarding disposal in whole or in part of the trust; and revocation of the trust if it is not being used for its intended purposes.
Castlerea Public Trust was originally created as a cow park trust, where local landless people could graze a cow. With the passage of time as Castlerea town has developed, part of the trust lands close to Market Square have been used by local people for recreational purposes and there are several paths and walkways traversing the trust lands.
As Minister, I am solely empowered to appoint trustees to these Land Act trusts. The existing trustees notify my Department when any appointments are necessary and they also nominate names of persons suitable and willing to act as trustees.
Minister, the remainder of the reply can be read into the record because there is quite a bit to go.
If the Deputy prefers I will get to the meat of it.
Yes, please. If the Minister could do so I would be keen to hear what he has to say.
I have only half a page left.
Okay, but it lessens your time for supplementary questions.
I will chat to the Minister afterwards.
The minimum number of trustees in this trust is five and the maximum number is 12. It is important that the replacement trustees are nominated by and acceptable to existing trustees to ensure the harmonious work of the trust. This is especially important in Castlerea because at present the people who are the trustees of the Castlerea Public Trust lands are also trustees of the contiguous private trust lands.
In the case of Castlerea Public Trust, new trustee nominations were recently submitted to me. I have not as yet appointed these nominated parties because I believe it is necessary for the existing trustees to carry out a comprehensive review of the operation of the trust and address in particular the need to modernise the use of the trust from mainly pasturage to accommodate general recreational use. When this review has been completed, I will consider the nomination and replacement of trustees, who may bring additional community value and reflect any new direction established for the use of the trust lands. This will entail the trustees liaising with community leaders for the ongoing development, preservation and increased community use of the important local amenity.
It is my policy generally with Land Act trusts that where agreement can be reached locally, ownership of the trust lands should be transferred to a community company or a co-operative representative of local communities. I endeavour to seek consensus not confrontation in carrying through such a transfer. I am mindful of the fact that the trustees in Castlerea and their predecessors in title have preserved and developed this trust since 1919 as a significant amenity for the area and I hope to be able to move this process forward in a positive way.
There are only two minutes remaining for this question.
I do not often come into the House and praise the previous Government. I hope I can do likewise for this Government. The former Minister of State, Deputy Michael Finneran, stated in this House: "The ... trust does not appear to be answerable to anybody, is not elected, refuses to discuss the business of the town demesne with any local representative group". That was possibly the first time that the former Minister of State chimed with the people of Castlerea.
In 2005, 1,300 people wrote to the then Minister with responsibility for agriculture asking her to revoke the trust. While she did not do so, she did not appoint any new trustees. This has led to the situation whereby there are now only five trustees remaining. If that number falls below five, it will not be possible to obtain a quorum for a meeting, at which point action will have to be taken. When I heard that an attempt had been made to appoint new trustees, I contacted the Minister whom I thank for taking the time to speak to me on what I know was a busy day for him.
More people have now written to the Minister. I understand some 1,300 people have done so and that there are a further 280 letters on the way to the Minister asking him not to appoint new members to the trust, to let it fall and, if needs be, to use his powers to revoke the trust. When the Minister's officials last visited the trust, they outlined the future of the cow park trust in view of the fact that the main objective of the original trust had now ceased. They also informed it of the 1,300 letters received by the Minister, which had been organised by then Councillor Flanagan, and said that as a public official the Minister could not ignore them.
Time for this question has elapsed.
The purpose of the trust has ceased. As such, an opportunity to revoke it exists. It is hoped the Minister will do this. People in my town are united on their right to have a say in their own future and destiny. I hope the Minister will facilitate that.
We must move on.
I thank the Minister for what he has done thus far.
I am not sure everybody will get what they want but we are moving towards resolving the matter.
All we want is openness and accountability.
That is what is happening. I turned around a situation about which the Deputy was very unhappy.
We have created time and space to try to find a solution.
Thank you.