The first priority question is in the name of Deputy Browne. As Deputy Browne is not present, we will go on to Question No. 102.
Priority Questions
Question No. 101 lapsed.
Agriculture Schemes Payments
Martin Ferris
Question:102. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the amount of SFP and other Common Agricultural Policy payments that are paid to registered companies not directly involved in farm production; and if he will support the ending of such payments. [15061/13]
Payments are made under the various schemes implemented under the Common Agricultural Policy to eligible applicants who meet the provisions in the EU regulations governing the schemes. In the case of the single payment scheme, eligible applicants must meet all of the following criteria: they must declare eligible hectares as defined under the provisions of article 34 of Council Regulation EC/73/2009; they must carry out farming activity on their holdings; they must hold payment entitlements; and, if they want to benefit fully, they must declare an eligible hectare for each payment entitlement held.
For all types of transfer of entitlements to companies, the applicants must complete a transfer of entitlement application form, which must be supported by a copy of the Companies Registration Office printout to allow the Department to identify the directors of the company for signature purposes. In addition, a memorandum of articles of association must be included detailing that the business of farming is being carried out by the company. To proceed with the requested transfer, officials from my Department ensure that all forms are signed appropriately and that the business of the company includes farming. There are only a small number of companies in receipt of the single payment scheme in Ireland and the vast majority of these were established in recent years by individual farmers who wished to transfer the operation of their farming enterprises to limited companies.
In the case of the market support and on-farm investment schemes implemented by my Department, these measures routinely apply in an equal manner to both natural and legal persons, including companies. Accordingly, where an applicant satisfies the eligibility conditions set out in the measure concerned, my Department is obliged to issue payment to the eligible applicant.
For payments made to companies under EU-funded schemes, both fully and partially, I refer the Deputy to my Department’s website, where details of EU payments to all beneficiaries who are legal persons, including limited companies, are published in accordance with the provisions of Council Regulation EC/1290/2005. The relevant site is http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/farmerschemespayments/methodsofpayments/commonagriculturalpolicycap/captowards2020.
I think I know what the Deputy's question is getting at. He raises the question of whether we should allow companies to draw down very large payments while individual farmers are struggling and need every cent they get in single farm payments. I will expand on that in my reply to the Deputy's supplementary question.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I tabled this question because of the disproportionate amount of money paid to a small percentage of those who are entitled to payments. It underlines the unbalanced way in which payments are distributed. Over recent weeks we have heard derogatory remarks made about small producers, small family farms and so forth to the effect that they are not productive. Some farm organisations want to maintain the status quo but, according to the Minister's words and my own view, the single farm payment is not equitable or fair. As elected representatives we should try to ensure it is made more favourable for those in most need.
A question, please.
Payments of over €500,000 to Larry Goodman's company and €680,000 to Abbott cannot be defended. At a previous Question Time the Minister expressed support for the capping of such payments at €100,000, but it now looks as if it will be €150,000. Did the Minister receive support from any other member state for this proposed cap? Did he push for it? Has he given any thought to the notion of flexibility towards a new model of payments? Will he come down in favour of another model for such payments?
I will come to the last question in a later reply. Back in 2007 there were 340 companies drawing down payments. There are now 435. It is true that many of these are a result of farmers coming together to set up a limited company to draw down payments on the transfer. There are larger companies also. The Deputy referred to the Irish Agricultural Development Company which is part of the Goodman group. It has a large beef herd and drawn down payments to which it is perfectly entitled. I do not think we should comment overly on individual cases because they are applying the rules of the system in place. However, we are changing this system with the Common Agricultural Policy reform process. Payments will be fairer and more equitable. The model I have advocated for the past 18 months will ensure that in the redistribution of direct and single farm payments, everyone will be moved to an average payment. However, this model will also limit the transfer in such a way that it does not put individual farmers out of business who rely heavily on their single farm payment, while at the same time significantly increasing payments to farmers who have historically low payments but want to become more productive. I will continue to advocate this policy because it is fair.
We achieved a significant victory at the Council of Ministers to get acceptance from the other 26 member states of this alternative model to the flat-rate, area-based model the Commission had proposed. We must go forward and reach a compromise position with the Commission which has a different view from mine, as well as the European Parliament which has a similar view to mine but wants to move further with redistribution. We will have to find before the end of June a way of compromising on a figure and method for redistribution.
Let us be clear. Redistribution is going to happen. The question is to what extent is it going to happen in terms of the amount of money involved and the pace of that redistribution. I have strongly advocated that we need to do this over time and limit the redistribution to ensure we keep our herd size and productivity intact, while assisting the farmers contributing most to the Food Harvest 2020 targets.
It is welcome that the Minister is moving towards redistribution. However, I am concerned that the fairness of the redistribution might be lost because of pressure being exerted by other interest groups. We need to keep as many small family farms in rural Ireland as we can. I would like to see the Minister's model that he has used in the negotiations. I hope it takes cognisance of the debate that has taken place politically in recent months to secure a viable income for smaller producers.
The Council has taken into account the debate that has been happening in rural Ireland. I am now trying to give the Government as many options as possible in terms of flexibility.
This is in order that when we conclude, hopefully by the end of June, a political agreement with the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council on what CAP reform will look like, we will have a series of options and flexibilities which we can decide on how best to use for Ireland in terms of taking the agri-food industry, agriculture and farming forward in a progressive way that helps people who need a leg-up, those on disadvantaged land who need support and that helps people who are planning significant expansion and growth to proceed through Pillar 1 money and rural development money. Both need to come hand-in-hand and they complement each other. Certainly, we will work on getting the maximum flexibilities in order that we can design a system for Ireland that suits agricultural production here. That will include a series of measures including the potential for coupling; the potential from switching money between Pillar 1 and Pillar 2; the potential for a redistributive payment, which has been discussed a good deal, or for an extra payment for the first 20 or 30 hectares; and the redistributive model that we have been discussing.
All these flexibilities are part of the discussion that we are trying to agree on at the moment. As part of this we will also be discussing an overall cap. I have said that I supported Deputy Ferris's suggestion several months ago that a cap of €100,000 would be appropriate in Ireland. We have no agreement on that because the view of the Council of Ministers was that €150,000 should be the figure. I am obliged to respect the strong majority decision there. Other countries will apply no cap, because it is voluntary. We will have to see what the discussions and debates with the Parliament and Commission result in before the end of June.
Coillte Teoranta Harvesting Rights Sale
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:103. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his input to the proposed sale of Coillte's harvesting rights; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15000/13]
We are back on Coillte.
We are staying on Coillte.
As a member of the Government I have been involved in all stages of the decision-making process to date in respect of the proposed sale of Coillte's harvesting rights. From the outset, following the publication of the report of the review group on State assets and liabilities in April 2011, I was engaged as the relevant Minister to ascertain the value of Coillte and its various assets. I began this through my initial engagement with Deloitte on a pro bono basis to examine the recommendations in the McCarthy report as they applied to my Department, including Coillte.
I have emphasised throughout the process the importance of making an informed decision in respect of the disposal of State assets and the Government has been proceeding with caution in respect of the consideration of the disposal of Coillte assets. This resulted in the Government decision in February 2012 that consideration would be given to the sale of some assets of Coillte, excluding the sale of land. The exclusion of the sale of land from the process was to address industry and public concerns expressed to me and my colleagues, and my colleagues concur with my views in this regard.
The most recent development in this regard was the decision by the Government last summer that a concession for the harvesting rights to Coillte forests be considered for sale. The context and background to this decision was outlined by my colleague the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and myself in the recent two-evening debate on the Private Members' motion for which Deputy Boyd Barrett was largely responsible.
As I stated in the debate, my Department, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and NewERA in conjunction with Coillte are examining the financial and other implications of developing the potential of Coillte's forestry assets. This work encompasses the identification of the forestry assets involved, the determination of their value and the consideration of several issues associated with the proposed sale of the harvesting rights. All of this work is being undertaken to inform the consideration of the Government on the sale of harvesting rights.
I must interrupt the Minister there. The rest of the reply will appear in the Official Report.
We are proceeding with caution. Nothing is being rushed. I will be bringing a recommendation to Government on this within months if not weeks. Certainly, we understand the concerns across the broader timber industry in respect of proceeding.
We have an obligation to look at the potential of all State assets and the appropriateness of their sale. We will give our full consideration to this asset and when the Government has had an opportunity to discuss and decide on the recommendations, I, in conjunction with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, will bring to the Cabinet, we will come back for a full debate.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
A steering group comprising representatives of NewERA, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and my Department was formed to monitor the analysis process. This group has met regularly and also formally met Coillte and representatives of the Coillte trade unions and the Irish Timber Council. I am regularly briefed by my officials on progress and the points of concern expressed at such meetings. I addressed a number of these concerns, including public access to Coillte lands and the crucial importance of Coillte for the country’s timber industry, in my contribution to the Private Members' debate last month. As I have said previously, the decision will be taken by the Cabinet when either the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform or I, or, more likely, both of us, have brought a report and recommendation to the Government, at which time it will be discussed and a decision made.
As the Minister knows and I have made clear, even considering a plan for selling State forests is repugnant and should be abandoned. Will the Minister give straight answers to my questions? As I understand it, he committed to selling the harvesting rights to the troika, but he now says he is considering it. Is that a change?
I am not selling anything to the troika.
Under the troika programme, the Minister committed to selling the Coillte harvesting rights. Is that true? If he now says he is considering this, does this mean he is backtracking on that commitment or that there is a possibility of changing the agreement with the troika? The lack of information and transparency around the proposed or considered sale of the harvesting rights stinks to high heaven. There is no information on the value of the harvesting rights. In recent years some €108 million worth of forestry has been sold, most of which we believe has been sold to banks. Why was that forestry sold and to whom was it sold? What conditions surrounded these sales in maintaining the sustainability of Irish forestry?
The Glennon sawmills indicated that 1.5 million cu. m of forest were cut down last year, although the forest strategy stated sustainable forestry would be based on a maximum of 1 million cu. m and guaranteed replanting of 25,000 ha. We cannot obtain information on how many hectares have been replanted, but I understand only 5,000 acres have. This suggests we are already in a situation where there is deforestation or unsustainable forestry production. Can we have the facts? Where are the annual reports of the forest service? What happened to the review of Irish forestry initiated by the previous Government and abandoned by the current Government? What valuations are being made of harvesting rights? Without this information and proper public consultation - we do not even know what the Minister is considering selling - we cannot work out whether the sale of harvesting rights represents asset stripping.
With all due respect, this is not the Deputy's decision alone. The Government is assessing all of the issues outlined by him. In fact, multiple assessments are being made in the valuation of timber and harvesting rights. However, just because we have not yet given that information to the Deputy which will be the basis of a Government decision does not mean the work is not being done. We are not going to release all of our information and have a debate that is only semi-informed. What we are going to do is make an assessment on the basis of a Government decision to look seriously at the sale of harvesting rights. That process is under way and close to a conclusion. Once all of these questions are answered, it will be my responsibility to go back to the Government for a policy decision and once that decision is made, we will bring it to this House for scrutiny, which is the appropriate way to do things and make decisions. At that time all of the information will be available. Information on many of the questions the Deputy has asked is available, for example, on Coillte's accounts, what it sold and to whom it was sold. Much of the sale of harvesting rights in the past ten years happened under a previous Government and I was involved in the committee that questioned Coillte about these sales. Therefore, there has been significant discussion of this issue.
With regard to afforestation, Coillte does not become involved in significant afforestation. What it does is replant land that has been harvested because it is obliged to do so by law.
The afforestation programme in Ireland, in terms of extra forest land, is by and large happening through the private sector, which is planting approximately 7,000 ha this year. It is one of the few areas in which my Department has seen no cuts over the last two budgets. This Government is committed to increasing the amount of forestation in Ireland because we think it is the right thing to do. We will continue to support the forestry sector in a proactive way. We will make our decisions with regard to Coillte in that context.
There is no proper information on these areas.
On what?
For example, why have so many harvesting rights been sold by Coillte in recent years? Was there a tendering process in each of those cases, as required under EU law? What conditions applied to those sales? These are serious questions, particularly given that one of the main beneficiaries of those sales was the Irish Forestry Unit Trust, which consists of Bank of Ireland, AIB and Irish Life. We know that banks like the Chinese state bank, the Swiss banks and possibly the Irish banks are lining up to take over our State forests. The Minister referred to the planting of 7,000 ha, but the forest strategy says we should be planting 25,000 ha.
Our target is 14,000 ha.
Not according to the website of the Forest Service, which I looked at today.
The Deputy should read the programme for Government.
The Forest Service does not produce proper annual reports. According to its website, the target is 25,000 ha. The Minister has said that the current rate of planting is 7,000 ha. We have evidence that 1.5 million cu. m of forests have been cut down. When all of that is added together, it is clear that we have deforestation in this country. We are not meeting our targets. We need a comprehensive analysis of this. I am not the only person who wants to know what is going on. All sorts of stakeholders want to know. All of this information should be in the public domain. Why are we not organising an independent assessment like that done in the UK, with open and transparent public consultation as part of the process? When that happened in the UK, the plan was abandoned.
I suggest that the Deputy should attend the next meeting of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine at which representatives of Coillte are in attendance to ask them some of these questions. They have been at that forum on a number of occasions in recent months. All of these questions have been asked and answered. Perhaps the Deputy should inform himself by talking to management representatives of the company at that forum, instead of coming in here to try to raise all sorts of concerns about issues he feels are not being addressed.
These questions are coming from people in the forestry sector.
Yes. It is clear that this Government would like to plant more trees. We would have to pay for that. My Department spends approximately €110 million per annum on afforestation and forestry premiums. That expenditure is not co-financed from Europe or anywhere else. That significant commitment has not decreased as reductions have had to be imposed on the rest of the budget. My expenditure ceilings have decreased significantly. If and when we can afford to spend more on afforestation, we will do so. The programme for Government contains an ambition to increase afforestation to 14,000 ha per annum. This country is way behind most other European countries in terms of forest cover. While we have made a commitment in this regard, the only money we can spend is the money I am allowed to spend under the expenditure ceilings within which I have to operate. We need to deal with the real world as with the facts as they are.
Aquaculture Licences
Éamon Ó Cuív
Question:104. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he considers it appropriate for him to be the decision maker in relation to an aquaculture licence application received from a State agency, Bord Iascaigh Mhara, that operates under the aegis of his Department and which is obligated to operate within the framework of his policy, and in the circumstances in which he has stated his support for the project; if he intends asking Bord Iascaigh Mhara to withdraw the application pending a change in the law to ensure modern practice in relation to the issuing of aquaculture licences; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15063/13]
An application by Bord Iascaigh Mhara for an aquaculture licence for the cultivation of finfish near Inis Oírr in Galway Bay was received by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine last year. The application and its accompanying environmental impact statement are being considered under the provisions of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1997 and the Foreshore Act 1933. The role of the Minister as the decision maker with regard to aquaculture licensing is clearly set out in the legislation. I am entirely satisfied that my role in that regard is not compromised in any way. In my statutory role as decision maker, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on this application, which is under assessment by the Department in accordance with the statutory process.
This question relates to the suitability of the process, rather than to the adjudication on the application. Can the Minister confirm the date on which the application was received from Bord Iascaigh Mhara?
Would the Minister agree that, both privately and at a very large public meeting of farmers held in Claremorris late last autumn, he clearly indicated his support for this project?
Will the Minister clarify whether it is the policy of his Department to encourage the type of development now engaged in by Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM? Would he not agree this clearly compromises the Department's ability to make an objective decision on this application? Would he not also agree it is BIM's obligation to carry out Government policy and, as I have said, ensure that the Government policy is clearly in favour of the project?
I have been a bit surprised by the Deputy's commentary on this issue. I have made it clear on many occasions, long before this application was made to my Department and since, that the issue of deep water aquaculture does provide an exciting potential for stimulus, growth and job creation for our seafood sector, particularly along the west coast. However, I have been very careful, both before and since this application was made, not to specifically support any one project or any one location for an application, because it would not be appropriate to do so. I have received strong advice on that and have adhered to that advice. However, this does not mean that I, as a Minister who is responsible for finding ways to create jobs, particularly in isolated parts of Ireland that do not have many other options or choices, would not look at ways in which we can get more out of our natural resources in a sustainable way. That is entirely different from making an assessment on an individual application, which I have a legal obligation to do in an independent and balanced way, and which I will do on the basis of scientific advice and of looking at the responses that have come from the public during the public consultation process.
It is my job to then weigh up the concerns that have been expressed, the support that has been given and the scientific advice from scientists in the Marine Institute and elsewhere, and to then make a balanced decision. If that decision is being challenged, it then goes to an appeals process through the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board system, which has been in place for many years. When the Deputy was a Minister, he would have understood how it worked. He should also understand that when an application is under consideration by the Department, it is not appropriate for the Minister to talk about the specifics of the application concerned.
That is why I was surprised to hear the Minister made specific comment on aquaculture in Galway Bay at a large meeting of farmers in Claremorris held late last autumn. Would he not agree that if he grants the licence now, in view of the circumstances that have arisen, it is likely to be subject to legal challenge? Would he not agree that it would be much more satisfactory for BIM to withdraw the application and for the law to be changed to put the issue of licences at arm's length from the Minister, which now happens in most cases? For example, with regard to oil permits and the like, which used to be subject to ministerial consents, during the term of the previous Government they were all moved to an arm's length position from the Minister, so the Minister did not become a judge in his own court in regard to applications. Would he not consider this a much more satisfactory process that would engender much more public confidence?
The Minister must note, for example, that Galway County Council last night passed a resolution opposing the proposal as it stands, and, therefore, we need public confidence in the process. Would he not agree it would be much better to introduce legislation transferring this function of granting or not granting the licence to either the EPA or An Bord Pleanála, so the Minister could be actively involved in policy formulation and policy promotion, and where somebody independent would look at the specific proposals and give an independent judgment on that?
Would the Minister agree that unless he does that, this will all be open to a legal challenge that would be likely to succeed?
No, I do not agree with the Deputy. He seems to be the one trying to stoke this up in terms of challenging its appropriateness. He was the first person to raise this matter. Nobody else raised it with me. It is not the case that everybody else has been calling for this and the Deputy is speaking for them. He seems to be the one trying to make a political football out of this. That is a decision for the Deputy to make.
I ask the Minister to conclude.
My job is to get on with what I am legally obliged to do which is to give due consideration in a robust but fair way to an application for a significant piece of infrastructure in water and I will do that. I will accept all of the advice I am supposed to get in that process and then make an independent and informed decision using my judgment as best I can. That is my responsibility. If people do not agree with that procedure or decision, they will have an opportunity to appeal it to the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board, ALAB, which is just as independent as An Bord Pleanála. Deputy Ó Cuív seems to be suggesting that we should hand this over to An Bord Pleanála. ALAB is the equivalent of An Bord Pleanála for licensing of aquaculture projects so I am not sure what the Deputy is getting at.
Coillte Teoranta Harvesting Rights Sale
Luke 'Ming' Flanagan
Question:105. Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will ensure a supply of timber to the indigenous saw milling plants in view of the sale of the harvesting rights of Coillte forests; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15362/13]
This is a question relating to Coillte and is a real concern for many timber companies and sawmills. Due to the fact that 80% of their supply comes from Coillte forests, they are concerned about the implication for their businesses of the sale of harvesting rights in forests on which they rely for a steady supply to their sawmills and the potentially disruptive effect if this sale is not managed properly. I have a list of the ten significant sawmill companies in Ireland. I have spoken to many of them and visited some of them to see their facilities, in particular Glennon Brothers in Fermoy. I am very aware of this issue.
I can reassure people that this Government is not going to proceed with a sale that will undermine or damage the broader timber industry that relies on Coillte. If we do proceed, this will be a major factor in the consideration of how we proceed to ensure that long-term and medium-term supply contracts remain intact to ensure this industry continues to grow and expand to its potential. I am not in the business of making a broad policy decision to sell an asset for short-term cash for the State in a way that will inflict long-term damage on an industry. I can assure the House that this is not going to happen on my watch.
If we make a Government decision to proceed in the coming weeks, we will do so in a way that will ensure that not only will the public asset that is timber and the land on which it grows remain intact and available to the public from an access perspective but the position held by Coillte as practically a monopoly supplier of timber to the timber industry does not change significantly the capacity to access timber at affordable prices over medium-term to long-term supply contracts in the context of any sale.
In September 2012, the Minister said it would be necessary to protect sawmills' supply arrangement with Coillte in the event of the sale of harvesting rights and that nobody can stitch it into any sales process. That is good news to some degree. It is interesting to note that the Government's amendment to the motion put forward by the United Left Alliance acknowledges and confirms the concerns of the recreational bodies that replanting and biodiversity requirements be catered for in any sale but that there is no mention of the concerns of the sawmill sector. Many in this sector have expressed their concern to me that the amendment did not cover this. Will I be able to ask a supplementary question or will there be time?
Yes, Deputy.
I do not have the Government counter-motion to hand. I recall my own contribution to the debate on that motion and in which I made direct reference to the sawmilling sector. I refer the industry to my contribution. Regardless of what was said then, I wish to clarify for the record that we are not in the business of putting a viable and progressive sawmilling industry in Ireland out of business by mishandling a sale or proceeding with a sale in an inappropriate manner. As I have said many times, when the Government makes a decision there will be an opportunity for the House to scrutinise that decision and its consequences.
That causes a bit of a quandary. Obviously the Government must take care of the sawmilling sector but if a rider is inserted that sawmills must be taken care of in the sale, this will affect the price. The price currently being mooted is not really very good value for the State and this will make it even worse.
However, something else will affect the price - if a sale is the intention - unless something is done about it. Why has Coillte management refused to order a Garda investigation into volume weight fraud, despite being requested to do so on numerous occasions? When it was initially reported to the Garda Síochána, the complainants were told that a report would be compiled and sent to superior officers, after which the Garda Síochána would respond to the complainants. This has not happened. In fact, this morning, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, informed me:
I have now received the Garda report. I am informed that the Garda authorities are not aware of any ongoing investigation into systematic weight volume fraud at Coillte Teo.
The reported fraud is apparently costing the State - or this semi-State company - tens of millions of euro. Given that it has been reported on numerous occasions, why is no action being taken?
This has not been reported to me on numerous occasions. I am aware that the Deputy has raised this issue before. If the Deputy has evidence on which I can act, I ask him to give it to me and I will act upon it.
It has been given to the Garda Síochána.
With respect, I do not deal with the Garda Síochána; I deal with Coillte at company board level. If there are questions which need to be asked of the Coillte board about any type of fraudulent activity, I will follow up on that. However, I will not cast aspersions without having the supporting evidence.
On the more general point about a Government decision on harvesting rights, this may be frustrating for the Deputy but he may have to wait until the Government decides. He will then know the rationale for that decision and be able to scrutinise it, which is his right.