Vol. 786 No. 3
6. Deputy Michael P. Kitt asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he would favour a limit on the amount of money being paid to any one farmer under the single farm payment of the Common Agricultural Policy 2014-2020; the ceiling he thinks would be appropriate; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [55990/12]
This question is in the name of Deputy Kitt, although I suspect it comes from Deputy Ó Cuív. It relates to whether we should be setting ceilings on future single farm payments. Before considering whether we should be setting caps on single farm payments, we first need to know that we have the capacity to do so. I have been supportive of the Commissioner's proposals to cap single farm payments. This would result in a reduction in payment on amounts in excess of €150,000. I would like to see the cap set lower than €150,000. I have stated that I would have no difficulty with a cap on payments of approximately €100,000. I recognise that we must find a common solution across the European Union which all countries can accept and live with. In my view, a number of the larger powerful countries, such as, for example, Germany and Britain, will not accept a cap on single farm payments because they have large landowners who are big commercial food producers who are receiving large payments and they want to see that continue.
Ireland is in a different situation. I need to ensure the flexibility countries are given in relation to the capping issue suits Ireland. Once a final deal is done and, if we have the capacity on a voluntary basis, country by country, to be able to set caps on single farm payments, we can then have this discussion and try to get this right. I do not have a problem with that in principle but we need to be careful not to push the cap too low because we have large commercial farmers we need to support. We will have an opportunity at a later stage, when we know the options, to be able to debate and discuss this issue and then make the most informed decision.
Perhaps the Minister will indicate the overall budgetary position for CAP funding. There appears to be some doubt about what that figure will be. Will we be dealing with a reduced provision in 2013 or is it likely the budgetary situation will deteriorate with the passage of time? The envelope available for distribution to primary producers in Ireland will be determined by the budgetary position. There are various proposals floating around concerning the multi-annual financial framework for 2014 to 2020 - the long-term budget plan. The danger in this context is that provision for CAP funding may well be reduced and that the Irish envelope will suffer as a result. Perhaps the Minister would appraise the House of the up-to-date position.
Two sets of negotiations are ongoing. The first concerns negotiations on the overall budget, the multi-annual financial framework, MFF, as referred to by the Deputy. We failed collectively last month as a European Union to get agreement on the MFF. This budget is for seven years and is worth more than €1 trillion. There was a wide variation in what countries wanted in terms of the levels of reduction or increases to that budget. For example, Britain wanted cuts of up to €200 billion. President Van Rompuy proposed cuts of approximately €80 billion. As the negotiations proceeded, the different budget lines within the budget were being debated in terms of which might take cuts and which might not. There are three big budget lines. CAP represents approximately 38 to 40% of the budget. Cohesion Funds represent one third of the budget and innovation and research and development also account for a large chunk of it.
Ireland has been trying to prevent a significant reduction in the overall MFF funding. If there are to be cuts, we will seek to protect the CAP budget within that. Some 85% of all EU money coming into Ireland comes through CAP. This amounts to approximately €1.6 billion per annum. We had some success in the negotiations. At one stage, it looked like there was going to be a cut to CAP of approximately 6% or 7% in terms of pillar 1 and about 11% in pillar 2. By the end of the discussions, this had been reduced to a 3% cut in pillar 1, which was progress. The difference was about €8 billion across the Union.
There is only one minute remaining for this question.
We hope to conclude the MFF discussions during the Irish Presidency of the European Council at a Heads of State meeting to be held on 7 February. It is likely to be the next big summit meeting on the MFF. If we can get the budget agreed in February, it may be possible to get the CAP reform finalised before the end of the Irish Presidency. If we cannot get the MFF agreed in February, it will be difficult, in terms of the timescale, to do this.
In terms of the eventual template or formula to be put in place for Ireland, a serious difficulty is arising in terms of the age profile of people involved in the agriculture industry in Ireland. As regards incentives and support under CAP to encourage young people to get involved and become participants in the future of the agriculture industry, how does the Minister see this unfolding?
This issue is the subject of Question No. 9, at which point I will respond to those questions.
We now move on to Question No. 7.
7. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the progress made to date with discussions in relation to the re-establishment of a sugar industry here including the growing of sugar beet for sugar production; the steps he has taken to promote this industry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [55991/12]
I have a problem with this question. It is an absolute disgrace that this question has been tabled. The question asks the Minister what steps he is taking to promote the sugar industry. I have news for the Deputies opposite: we do not have a sugar industry. It is an insult to people like me and others who grew beet and worked in the factories that Members opposite would table a question like this.
It is absolutely unbelievable. Why do we not have an industry? We do not have an industry because a Fianna Fáil Minister in a Government of which Deputy Ó Cuív was a member shut it down and absolutely ruined our countryside.
I must ask the Deputy-----
I understand that but it is insulting to those of us who tried to maintain the industry. I could spend ten minutes talking about why we do not have a sugar industry and I am upset that Deputy Ó Cuív is not here to respond to me.
This is out of order, Deputy. I ask Deputy Barry to resume his seat.
I will resume my seat but it is an absolute disgrace that Deputy Ó Cuív tabled this question and his colleagues know that.
Deputy Barry, you cannot-----
It is insulting for those of us who have suffered. I am not going to allow this sort of behaviour. The Deputy tabled a question but he knew damn well-----
Deputy Barry is totally out of order.
The conduct of the Chamber is my responsibility.
I understand that.
I ask the Deputy to resume his seat. The Ceann Comhairle has listed the questions for oral answer and I am obliged to deal with the questions and invite the answers.
I understand that but the Deputies on the other side know that their party was responsible for closing down the sugar industry. It is a disgrace-----
That is a discussion for outside this House.
The Fianna Fáil Deputies brought it inside the House.
Deputy, please. I call on the Minister.
I can understand my colleague's frustration, as somebody who comes from a town where the sugar industry provided huge employment and significant opportunities for arable farmers in particular, that the industry is now no longer in existence because of policy decisions and mistakes that were made a number of years ago. That being said, I think it is possible for us to revive the sugar industry, but only if a number of things happen.
First of all, I have made it clear that the Government is not going to subsidise the setting up of a new sugar industry because we need to ensure that any new industry that begins in Ireland again can stand on its own two feet. However, I believe there is a fighting chance that the sugar industry will be set up again in Ireland on a commercial basis. Last summer we had two very professionally put together viability studies for the setting up of a sugar industry in Ireland again, from a processing point of view, which would involve building a large sugar processing plant and ethanol production facility. There are a number of people who are extremely committed to making this happen and they are very credible people. Michael Hoey, in particular, who heads up Beet Ireland, has put a huge amount of his own resources and time into putting together a very realistic business plan for rebuilding a sugar processing sector in Ireland. It is his job to put the business case together and he will do that, in terms of attracting investors and so forth. It is my job to ensure that if that business case is to proceed that there is either a sugar quota for Ireland in the future or there is no sugar quota in the European Union.
The current sugar regime in the EU will end in 2015 and Ireland has already been compensated to get out of that regime to the tune of €353 million. That means that we are not going to be able to produce sugar before 2015. The Commission is proposing that the sugar quota regime would end in 2015, which is something that Ireland supports. However, I do not think it is realistic because the countries that currently have sugar quota will insist on the quota regime extending beyond 2015, in my view, possibly until 2018 or 2020. In that context, we will be seeking an opportunity for Ireland to be allocated quota for domestic use, given the fact that we have been compensated to be out of the sugar industry until 2015 but not beyond that. Given the size of our food industry here and the volume of sugar use in that industry, we should be allowed a sugar quota to be able to support it. We have made a very strong case for this, both publicly and privately, to the Commission.
If there is potential to rebuild and regenerate the sugar industry in Ireland then clearly steps should be taken to do so. As the Minister has said, at least one feasibility study has been carried out-----
Two studies have been carried out.
Have those feasibility studies been made available to the Minister?
Yes.
Have the studies been assessed by those who are dealing with the possibility of regenerating the sugar industry and if so, what does the assessment indicate? Is there a potential for the industry, provided certain things happen and if they do not happen, what is the position? What is our competitive position vis-à-vis other sugar producing countries across the EU?
The feasibility studies were very professionally done. Both of them were presented to me and both of them involved detailed meetings around the presentation of those feasibility studies. We then asked officials in the economics section of my Department to assess the feasibility of the business plans. It is important to say, though, that in order for those business plans to be viable, the price of processed sugar must remain at a level that can pay for all of this because we are talking about a €200 million investment to build the plant before any sugar beet can be processed to produce either ethanol or sugar. It is probably fair to say, as a rule of thumb, that these feasibility studies stack up if the price of sugar remains at over €500 per tonne. It is well over that level at the moment and actually, in the last 12 months, it was close to €800 per tonne because there were real shortages of sugar in the European Union. A lot of food industries in Ireland, some from my own part of the country, were finding it hard to get sugar at any price, which suggests that there is an argument around sugar security for both the pharmaceutical and food industries. Having said that, a judgment has to be made by the investors and those putting the business plan together as to what the likely sugar price will be in three, five or ten years time and what the price will be if sugar quotas are abolished in the European Union.
When we were producing sugar in Ireland we were not particularly competitive vis-à-vis other parts of Europe in terms of the tonnage of beet per hectare we were growing and the sugar content. However, I believe we can be much more competitive now and the proof of that can be seen in the United Kingdom at the moment. The varieties of sugar beet being grown there are highly competitive with other parts of Europe and there is no reason Ireland could not benefit from that. We can be competitive in this area but whether this happens will be contingent on where world sugar prices go. In my view, they are not likely to collapse any time soon. Sugar is in strong demand because consumption will continue to grow, both in the European Union and, more important, further afield.
8. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the position regarding the proposed sale of the Coillte forest crop; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [55980/12]
The Deputy's question concerns the current position with regard to Coillte. Deputies will know that the Government made a decision in principle to move ahead with preparing for and investigating the possibility of a sale of Coillte forests. Essentially this involves selling the harvesting rights to commercial Coillte forests and the investigative and preparatory process is under way. Work is ongoing between Coillte, NewEra - which is managing this process - and my Department. Consultants have also been brought in to do specific work around valuations and managing how the sales process may proceed, with the aim of maximising the value to the State, if value is to be found, as well as taking account of the other sectors that may be impacted by such a sale, such as the sawmill sector and timber supply generally, which is totally dominated by Coillte at the moment. This is a very complex process which we are in the middle of at the moment but I assure Deputies that the Government will act with caution. We will not do anything that will undermine or significantly damage the timber or sawmill sectors in Ireland. Effectively, we have a monopoly in Coillte at the moment. Most sawmills take more than 80% of their timber from Coillte forests. If we proceed with this, we will do so with caution to try to protect other sectors that will be affected by any sale, while at the same time trying to maximise value for the State.
Are we to deduce from what the Minister has said that no decision has been taken yet as to what will happen with Coillte?
I assume that the decision on selling it has not been taken and that the process of assessment is continuing. I ask the Minister to clarify that issue.
The Government decision was straightforward. We are not selling the company or the land. The principal decision was to investigate and, if it makes sense to do so, proceed with the sale of harvesting rights for Coillte forests. This would involve selling crops early, just like farmers might sell 30% of their barley crops before they are mature. This is one option for realising the value of State assets, that is, the standing timber on State-owned land managed by Coillte, at a time when we need cashflow. In the context of that sale, a range of complex issues arise which need to be addressed if we are to proceed with our plans. The only decision that the Government has taken is that we will prepare for the sales process with a view to making a decision in the new year on whether it makes sense to continue the process in terms of realising value for the State without compromising strategic assets.
The sale of immature timber will have profound implications for the saw milling sector, which employs a significant number despite the recession. I understand the downturn in the economy has had a minimal effect on the numbers employed in the sector thanks to the flexibility of both employers and employees. I ask the Minister for his assurance that the employment prospects and long-term viability of the saw milling sector will be borne in mind in any decision taken.
I get the impression that the Minister is not jumping over the moon about selling Coillte. The timber industry is very important for the saw milling sector but I am sure he will accept that the 18 million people who visit Coillte forests every year are also important in terms of recreation and environmental matters. Does he agree that the proposal to sell the forest assets owned by Coillte presents a serious threat to the use of forests by the people? It is an issue about which we are all concerned and I have received a considerable number of e-mails from groups which use Coillte forests for recreation and environmental matters.
As I noted earlier, if we proceed with the sales process, we intend to protect the State assets, in other words, the common good element of State-owned forests in terms of the land on which they sit. That includes public access. Most of the forests to which there is public access are not commercial crops. At least 25% of Coillte's estate comprises mature broadleaf forest primarily used for recreation. That will remain the case. These forests will remain in the ownership of the State and under the management of Coillte. The sale will involve standing commercial timber and we will proceed with caution and in a way that is consistent with the Government's decision.
9. Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the steps he has taken to address the age profile imbalance in the farming industry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [55959/12]
Many people find it extraordinary that more farmers are over the age of 80 than under the age of 35. That is no basis for the kind of ambition we share for growth and innovation in the sector. This is not to imply there are no good farmers who are older than 80. Many of them are wise people who can teach the new generation.
They have accumulated experience.
Large numbers of young people are enrolled in agricultural colleges. Over the past six years, the number has increased from 600 to 1,450 per year. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of young men and women who want to get into farming and we need to offer them a future. That is why an Irish proposal was taken on by the Commission as part of the Common Agricultural Policy reform to ask countries to set aside 2% of pillar 1 single farm payment money over the next five years for top-up payments for young farmers under the age of 40. In other words, single farm payments for young farmers under the age of 40 will be topped up by 25%, up to a maximum of five years. It is like an installation aid scheme except that it is sponsored by European money. Ireland's proposal was supported by Hungary and the Commission has taken it on. Irrespective of whether it is mandatory or voluntary, it will be implemented if I am still Minister. We need to support young farmers in terms of giving them a financial advantage to allow them to invest in expanding their businesses. That will boost the realisation of the targets in Food Harvest 2020. Pillar 2 also provides opportunities to support young farmers through a series of programmes supported by rural development funds.
In terms of national policy, despite all the difficult decisions taken in the budget, we acted strategically to support young farmers by encouraging the consolidation of farms, and maintaining the preferential treatment they get in terms of stock relief, exemption from stamp duty and partnerships where sons and daughters work with their parents to manage the farm. A number of positive initiatives are being taken in the interests of young farmers to address the generational problem.
Does the Minister agree that we need to develop a public policy position which would also involve Revenue and other Departments? The prospects for young farmers having access to land other than by leasing arrangements are limited and unless they win the lotto or inherit large sums of money, they are often unable to buy the sort of acreage that would rapidly create a viable holding. Does the Minister see a need for a co-ordinated approach to stock relief, leasing arrangements and special tax breaks for those who own the land to ensure young people who graduate from agricultural colleges can seamlessly enter the industry and provide the energy it clearly needs?
I listened with interest to the Minister's comments on educational facilities for young farmers. Quality education is key to developing Irish agriculture and giving it a competitive edge in Europe. The Minister may be aware, however, that at least six agricultural colleges closed across the midlands during my lifetime. There is a significant deficit in terms of educational facilities. I have raised this issue in the House in respect of the midlands and Deputy Kirk's area.
The Deputy's point has been well made. Will he, please, allow the Minister to respond?
There is a huge deficit in the north of the country. Does the Minister have plans to provide a new agricultural facility in the midlands or further north?
I agree with the Deputy that agricultural colleges, universities and institutes of technology that offer strong food and agricultural courses are hugely important. We do not have plans to build new agricultural colleges. What happened was that there was a dramatic fall-off in the numbers of young men, in particular, going to agricultural colleges. As a result, some of the colleges closed and there was huge pressure to close others. I remember sitting in a committee room trying to persuade policymakers that we should not be shutting colleges such as Rockwell, Gurteen, Clonakilty and others. Fortunately, that did not happen and now these colleges are operating at full capacity. Buildings are not the problem. The problem is the availability of adequate staffing and expertise.
Multyfarnham and Warrenstown which were fine colleges were closed. As a result, there is no agricultural facility in the midlands and no place in which to educate its young farmers. I plead with the Minister to look at this issue.
That would be an excellent subject for a Topical Issue debate.
All of the agricultural colleges have dorm facilities. Therefore, having to attend an agricultural college in another part of the country is not a disaster. I went to Gurteen agricultural college, which is a long way from where I live in Cork, and had a really good year there. I probably learned more in that year about farming than I did during my three year degree programme in agricultural science. It works well when people from different parts of the country move to other parts where they can meet different types of farmers with whom they can live and learn while in agricultural college.
10. Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the number of farmers who successfully applied for the sheep grassland scheme in 2012, broken down by county; the total anticipated savings in the Budget 2013 changes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [55970/12]
I mentioned this issue earlier in connection with a matter raised by Deputy Martin Ferris. I would like to explain the decisions taken in last week's budget on the sheep grassland scheme. We had a three year grassland scheme which was costing the country approximately €18 million a year, using unspent funds under Pillar 1. The aim of the scheme and the idea behind it was to increase the number of sheep being farmed in Ireland because for ten years in a row the flock decreased in size year after year. We had to try to reverse that trend. I am delighted to be able to say the scheme has contributed significantly to reversing it and for the first time in a decade, the flock is bigger this year. Therefore, the scheme has worked well.
I now want to try what I know has worked in other sectors, particularly in the dairy sector, in which we have seen the benefit of discussion groups. In the dairy sector dairy farmers meet on a monthly basis in what they might call "dairy discussion groups" to discuss how their business works and how their animals are performing and everything else. The issues discussed include fertility, grazing, feed conversion efficiency, stock management and so on. The evidence we have from the groups is that, on average, farmers who attend them have increased their profit margins by somewhere between 4% and 5%. I want to see the same benefits in the sheep sector. The sheep grassland scheme was due to end this year, but we have chosen to extend it into next year. We will spend €14 million on it next year and use €3 million from the budget to initiate a sheep discussion group model to encourage sheep farmers to enter the type of discussion group setting that has worked so well for the dairy and beef sectors in order that we can help sheep farmers to make more in the market place rather than rely on schemes for an income. This is a progressive measure. It is about using money in the most progressive way we can, given the problems we face.
Despite the Minister's protestations, the reality is that the budgetary provision for the scheme is going downhill. Once he starts to reduce the funds available-----
It is not.
The fund is being reduced from €18 million to €14 million.
It is going from €18 million to €17 million, when we include the €3 million being transferred for the sheep discussion groups
I take it there has been an assessment of expenditure under the scheme by the Department. What has been the result of that assessment? Has the expenditure been justified? Obviously, the Minister has decided to change direction. Should there be a continuation of the financial support provided under the original scheme?
The scheme has been a success on a number of levels. We had seen sheep numbers reduce year on year and were getting to a stage where the perception was developing that a farmer could not make money from sheep farming. We had to put a scheme in place to help farmers to make more money from responsible sheep production and that was the origin of the sheep grassland scheme which was a three year scheme. This was to be the last year of the scheme. We believe it makes sense to continue it but to divert some of the money towards a discussion group model that we know has worked well for other sectors in order that, as well as supporting the income of sheep farmers and the quality of production, we can help upskill them to ensure they are maximising the potential of their holdings and the returns they obtain. That is what discussion groups do.
Although farmers have seen this move as a cut to the sheep grassland scheme, they should instead look at it in the round and realise that while there is a slight reduction in financial support for the scheme, there is a new opportunity for them to sign up to participate in a sheep discussion group through which they will be paid €1,000 a year to attend meetings and participate in discussions that will help them to run a more effective lamb and sheep production business. That is a good use of the money.
On the issue of schemes, I notice the suckler cow welfare scheme has been done away with.
Is the Deputy trying to get in early?
I realise this is a slightly different issue, but small farmers have contacted me about it. Producing suckler cows has been a way of life for them and even if they do not make money one year, they stay in the business because it is their way of life. The ending of the scheme is a huge blow for many small farmers who have depended on this money. The allowance used to be €80 which was cut to €40 and now it is €20, payable on a maximum of 20 animals. There is significant work involved for the farmers concerned. Last week I spoke to a farmer who had gone through all his records for his animals, including date of birth, date of tagging of cow and calf, the rate of calving, the date of dehorning, the date of castration, date of meal introduction and so on. He needs three bags of meal for just one calf.
None of that comes under the scheme we are discussing.
The farmer also mentioned he had to feed a calf meal for six weeks before he could part with it. The scheme was a very good one for the industry and made sense. Sadly, its demise will hit small farmers more than big farmers. It is a pity it is going. I, therefore, suggest the Minister should reconsider the matter.
To use a golf analogy, the Deputy is out of bounds on this question. However, the Minister seems to be willing to respond.
We need a flexible Acting Chairman.
If the Acting Chairman allows, I will be happy to answer the question. There are only the four of us in the Chamber. The media have probably long since gone to bed.
I feel I am in Gurteen to gain an education.
This is a serious issue. I hope I have answered the questions on sheep farming. I answered questions on the beef sector for Deputy Martin Ferris, but I will respond to Deputy Mick Wallace. I am not targeting the small guys. The new scheme we are putting in place - a €10 million scheme - will ensure farmers with 20 or fewer suckler cows will receive payments on all of them. We made this provision deliberately to ensure smaller farmers would receive their payments first. The bigger farmers, with more than 20 animals, may receive payment on more than 20 animals, if there is money left over as I suspect there will be at the end of the process.
The other aspect is that the new scheme does not requires farmers to do anything other than transfer data relating to the breeding and fertility of their animals to the ICBF. We are not asking them to do all the other things they would have been paid for before. In other words, they are being asked to do a fraction of what they were asked to do before and they are being paid €20 per cow rather than €40 per cow. It is important for the Deputy to understand that the total amount of money going into the beef sector next year will not be very different from what went into the beef sector this year. That is because under the existing suckler cow welfare scheme, at least €10 million is to be paid next year in respect of calves that were born in the second half of this year. When that €10 million is taken with the €10 million we will spend on the new data transfer scheme and the €5 million we will spend on beef discussion groups - farmers will be given €1,000 to attend meetings and learn about how they can run their businesses more effectively - it means we will be spending €25 million on the beef sector next year. Most of that will be spent in the suckler beef sector. We spent approximately €27 million in the beef sector this year. It is important for farmers to get this into context. Since the budget, there has been a blunt focus on arguing that the abolition of the suckler cow welfare scheme is a disaster. I suggest there should be a concentration on what we are putting in place to replace it. The State will be putting almost as much money into the suckler sector next year as it has put into it this year. We are prioritising small farmers in that mix.
Can the Minister tell us the number of suckler cows in the national herd? What is the position at the moment? What was it in each of the last three years? What is the trend?
I take the Minister's point. I have been listening to a couple of farmers who will be seriously affected by this change. They were getting €80. I know the Minister is saying they will have less work to do now in terms of documentation and registration, etc., but they did not mind doing the work. That is what these small farmers were used to doing. It was a good idea for them to keep records like this. I do not know if they will have to do as much feeding under the new scheme. The level of feeding they had to do under the old scheme made sense. It is pretty draconian for a small farmer to have the payment he gets for each calf reduced from €80 to €20.
The point is that they are being asked to do a fraction of what they were previously asked to do. I agree that this was a great scheme. It improved the quality of suckler beef in Ireland and brought about significant changes in areas like animal husbandry, data collection and the general performance of those animals. While I would have put a new scheme in place anyway, I would have liked to have had more money to spend on building up the suckler cow welfare scheme. I hope we will be able to spend more money in this area in the future. When the new Common Agricultural Policy is in place, I hope we will be able to fund a larger scheme than the one to be implemented next year. It is important to understand that all of the €25 million being spent in this sector will go to farmers. It may go to different farmers next year. It is important to recognise that contrary to what some farmers have claimed, there will be no dramatic reduction in the money going into this sector, all of which will go to farmers as I have said.
We must finish on that note.
I will conclude by responding to the point made by Deputy Kirk. Half of the beef in Ireland comes from the suckler herd and the other half comes from the dairy herd. As I have said on many occasions, if we do not support the suckler herd, beef will simply become a by-product of the dairy industry as it expands and grows in the context of the elimination of quotas in 2015. I do not want that to happen because all of the real quality Irish beef comes from the suckler herd. It is delivered by the bloodlines and the breeding. That is why this sector needs additional support. I hope we will be able to provide it in the context of the new Common Agricultural Policy.
I would like to make a brief point about the scheduling of Question Time, particularly on Thursdays.
We have gone over time.
I will be brief. The questions we have been discussing this evening relate to what is probably the most important industry in the country. I do not have a problem with being here after 8 p.m. If some of the earlier business had not finished ahead of schedule, however, Question Time would not have started yet. It was not due to start until 8.45 p.m. I assure the Minister that I am not carping when I say that the Whips need to examine the arrangements for the scheduling of the business of the House, particularly on Thursday evenings. I am saying this in the context of agriculture questions, but it applies to other areas as well. We should be able to revert to the traditional afternoon slot for Question Time.
I assure the Deputy that would have been my preference as well.
It would have been mine too. As I said earlier, at least I got the benefit of a lovely plate of sole. I thank those who posed the questions and the Minister who replied to them. I thank the Clerk and the staff for their attendance.
