Denis Naughten
Question:106. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the steps he is taking to address the incidence of bovine TB; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14677/13]
Other Questions
TB Eradication Scheme
The bovine TB eradication programme implemented by my Department involves a comprehensive range of measures, including the mandatory annual testing of all cattle in the national herd, the early removal of reactors, the payment of compensation for cattle removed as reactors, implementation of a range of supplementary tests such as post-derestriction and contiguous tests, a wildlife programme involving the removal of badgers where they are implicated in a TB breakdown and, where appropriate, the depopulation of infected herds.
These measures have proven to be relatively effective in recent years, as evidenced by the significant reduction in disease levels over the past decade. For example, herd incidence has fallen from 7.5% in 2000 to 4.26% last year and reactor numbers in 2012 were, at 18,476, almost 40% lower than in 2008. In fact, the number of reactors last year was the lowest recorded since the commencement of the programme in the 1950s. Both the previous Government and this Government have been consistent in their efforts in this regard. It should also be noted that the reduction in disease levels in recent years has also resulted in considerable savings on disease eradication. For example, annual expenditure on the TB and brucellosis eradication schemes has fallen by over €20 million or by one third since 2008. I am sure Deputy Naughten has a more specific question and I will be pleased to answer it.
I have a specific question on the accuracy of the tuberculin skin test, which has been in use for nearly 60 years. It is about time we looked at something more effective to deal with the incidence of TB. There were reports last month in the UK media about a cow in respect of which the skin test produced negative results for five years but which was found to be riddled with TB when slaughtered. The cow was tested after 2007 in a college farm herd of 300 in Carmarthenshire. All monitoring, supervision and regulation was in place but the animal seemed to go under the radar. My concern is that there is a tension between cost and effectiveness in TB testing. The interferon-gamma test is very effective at identifying TB but it cannot be used as a surveillance test. Has any progress been made on the new Enfer blood test, which could function as a surveillance test and would be far more effective?
The honest answer is "I do not know," but I will find out. We have been using the same testing system for decades and it is based on a skin test. I know how it works because when I got this job I was being asked about TB and wanted to know exactly how testing worked. I am not familiar with the alternative testing systems but I will revert to the Deputy. If there is a genuine concern about accuracy, we must act.
I thank the Minister for his response. The difficulty is that TB and testing cost farmers on average €2,000 per annum. The 60th anniversary of TB testing will take place next year and it is time to reconsider how we carry out those tests.
The slaughter of badgers is very controversial here and in the United Kingdom and I have a suggestion to put to the Minister in that regard. We have a network of veterinary laboratories nationally. Could we examine the testing of badger roadkill, which would not involve the deliberate killing of the animals and might identify additional reservoirs of TB nationally? It might be a more effective approach than the current one. Roadkill testing could complement the current approach.
The badger programme is a targeted one. There is a great deal of misunderstanding about how we catch and put down badgers. We try to do it as humanely as possible. The view that we use wire snares is incorrect. We had a long discussion on the programme during the debates on the Animal Health and Welfare Bill 2012 on Second and Committee Stages. I reassure people that we are trying to do everything we can to take account of welfare considerations. I hope to move to a badger vaccination programme rather than continue with the termination programme. As soon as we can do that without undermining our goals on TB, we will. People would be much more comfortable with that.
The evidence strongly suggests at the moment, however, that targeted badger culls in areas where there is a link between badgers and the spread of TB are hugely effective. In Northern Ireland and the UK they have been nothing like as successful in reducing the incidence of reactors within herds. The major difference in approach between the jurisdictions involves badgers. I will move to a targeted programme of vaccination of badgers rather than a targeted cull as soon as we can credibly do it and as soon as I am advised that we can proceed without undermining the overall programme.
If we can be more accurate in badger management by actually testing some of the badgers that have been killed on the roadside, it seems to be a sensible suggestion and I will include it in the system for consideration.
Aquaculture Licences
Éamon Ó Cuív
Question:107. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine when a decision will issue on the application by Bord Iascaigh Mhara for an aqualicence in respect of a fish farm in Galway Bay; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14643/13]
The question concerns when I will make a decision on the application in respect of a deepwater salmon farm in Galway Bay and an aquaculture licence. We will make the decision when I have all the information. We do not have the information and I have not read the application which is going through the system, as it needs to do. The queries, concerns and objections raised during the public consultation process must be considered in full. They are being considered in full and the answer to the question is that a decision will be made when we are ready to make it. It is a complex application and we will take as long as is necessary before I receive an informed recommendation on the decision I should make for approval, non-approval or amended approval. I will wait until I have answers to the questions raised and a recommendation on my desk before I give a date for it. I suspect it will be some time yet before a decision is made.
Does that mean it will be one month?
At least. I do not know the time involved, but it will not be within weeks.
In the event that a fish farm is developed, if the licence holder is not the operator and the fish farm causes major ecological damage, will the licence holder or the operator, or both, be liable for damages if a case is taken in respect of ecological damage caused?
We are talking about something that has not happened and I presume the answer to the question lies in the contractual relationship involving an owner or a company that leases infrastructure. This is a question I cannot answer without looking at the leasing contractual relationship. I am not even sure why it is relevant to an application at this stage. We are only looking at whether it is appropriate to provide the infrastructure proposed at a particular site and on a particular scale. We must consider the application on its merits. This is my job and I will try to do it. Any implication after that will take its own course.
The national seafood programme states "the targets for increased productive capacity for salmon will now have to be deferred until after 2013 as a result of the amendments made to this Programme" until such time as the sea lice issue has been satisfactorily resolved. A senior official in the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources has made it very clear that, as far as the Department is concerned, there has been no resolution of the issue. At the joint sub-committee on fisheries last week he said: "What we have suggested is an independent review of all the scientific data from both sets of stakeholders, which would allow for some level of accord among stakeholders."
Will the Minister clarify the apparent contradiction in the seafood programme of his Department that a moratorium is in place until this issue is cleared? It is clear that the issue of sea lice has not been satisfactorily resolved and that another Department went on the record last week stating there was conflicting evidence, an issue which had not been resolved. Is a moratorium in place or not?
The Deputy is trying to drag me into a detailed debate on issues to which I will have to give consideration in regard to a licence application which is active. I will not get dragged into that debate.
The question did not relate to any-----
I heard the Deputy's question.
It was related to a general moratorium.
The Deputy does not have to repeat the question.
I asked the Minister whether a moratorium was in place or not. The question has nothing to do with a specific application. I am talking about a general policy issue of a moratorium which the Minister's Department put in place under the seafood programme. It is a simple question. Is there a moratorium in place under the seafood programme? Perhaps the Minister might answer that question in view of the issue I have raised in the House which has nothing to do with a specific application but with the generality of the moratorium in place.
Does the Minister have an answer?
As the Minister has no answer, we will move on.
The silence says a lot.
There is no moratorium in place.
There is.
Geological Surveys
Thomas Pringle
Question:108. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he has seen the results of the geological survey conducted by Coillte; if he intends to make that survey public; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15009/13]
This query about a geological survey has been asked in the House on a number of occasions. The background is that Coillte Teoranta was established as a private commercial company under the Forestry Act 1988 and day-to-day operational matters such as the conduct of surveys are the responsibility of the company. My Department has contacted Coillte which has advised that it has not conducted a geological survey of the estate.
I note that this issue was raised by Deputy Martin Ferris when Coillte met the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine last October, in reply to which Coillte management stated that, while it had information on the extent of deposits of stone, sand and gravel, with regard to other deposits such as precious metals, the company had done no work in that area. I understand Coillte also suggested the Geological Survey of Ireland might be a possible source of information. Coillte has since advised my Department that it commissioned a study from NUI Galway in 2005 to identify and assess the extent of stone, sand and gravel deposits in areas of the estate where national data from Geological Survey of Ireland maps had indicated there might be such deposits. My Department does not have a copy of that report.
The Minister has said this question has been asked previously and getting an answer to it is particularly important in the context of the possible, or proposed, sale of harvesting rights. No doubt the Minister will say that is a different issue and that we are not selling the land, just the harvesting rights. In that context, if the profitable bit of State forestry is taken over by private interests and we are left with responsibility for the maintenance of the rest, the pressures on whatever agency is left running the rest to be sold further down the line because it will not have the means to generate revenue will become very great. I certainly believe we will be on a slippery slope towards full-scale privatisation of forests. That is the reason we should not even consider starting down that road.
A question, please.
Given that 7% of the landmass of the country is in the hands of Coillte, would it not be a priority to ascertain what is under that forestry and those lands in terms of mineral deposits such as oil, gas, sand, stone, gravel and so on which potentially could be very valuable? We need to know what valuable resources we have in the State, particularly at this time.
Should the Government not take a more urgent interest in this, just as it should take more interest in the detail of what is happening in such an important company? Does the Minister believe we need to know more?
I assure the Deputy that I do take interest in the detail of what is occurring in Coillte. If we find valuable natural resources underground, we must obviously examine how best we can use them. I hope the Deputy and others will support us in this regard. Unfortunately, this has not been the case in that the Deputy opposed vehemently the bringing ashore of natural resources just off the coast in his constituency, which resources would have been for the betterment of the State.
Coillte needs to use the entire land-bank as best it can, be it for forestry, wind power, public amenities or tourism. It is the job of Coillte as a commercial semi-State body not only to obtain a commercial return for its shareholders but also to serve the public good in all its activities. In that context, it is fair that we consider potential assets that may be under the land-bank, which, as the Deputy stated, represents 7% of the land mass of Ireland.
In any of these matters, I am for weighing up the risks and benefits. Putting an oil rig 6 km off the coast was all risk for the public and of no benefit given the licensing regime. That is also true if the Minister is making an oblique or not-so-oblique reference to fracking. We need to examine the environmental dangers. In any event, given the licensing and taxation regime, there is nothing in it for us. Therefore, why would we even dream of taking a risk in that context? What we and the public need to know are the facts. Who wants what Coillte has, and what does it have? To make any informed judgments on these matters, we need to know what we have. I suspect that some people know a hell of a lot more about what we have and its potential than we do. It is in this context that I am asking my question. I certainly believe that the sorts of people who might buy the harvesting rights or, at a later stage, State forestry will just be interested in the quick buck rather than the sustainable management of natural resources in the interest of the people and country as a whole.
Our forests have great financial potential. If the Minister states no geological survey has been done, will he have one carried out before considering a sale? Will there be an independent valuation? NewERA's valuation of potential harvesting rights at €600 million seems ridiculously low. Is there a price below which the Minister would not dream of selling the harvesting rights? Will he have the real worth of the assets, today and in the longer term, independently valued?
On Deputy Boyd Barrett's point, I was not referring to fracking. Much consideration is required before making a decision on fracking.
On Coillte, we are not proposing to sell anything except harvesting rights, which essentially means timber. There is a valuation of Coillte's commercial forests in terms of the standing timber and its future value. The valuation is the combination of a number of separate valuation processes, one of which was engaged in by Coillte itself. I believe there were two valuations by NewERA.
At my request, Deloitte looked at this issue on the basis of Coillte's accounts. A lot of work has been done on this issue. As a Government, we need to weigh up the potential value of that sale versus how it might affect other elements of the timber industry, how we can ensure this does not happen and the cost implications for an overall sale. All of these issues are being considered. When I bring a recommendation on the basis of all of these variables to the Government, an informed and cautious decision on the future of the harvesting rights of the commercial timber which Coillte owns will be made.
Coillte Teoranta Lands
Sandra McLellan
Question:109. Deputy Sandra McLellan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will give a guarantee that Coillte will continue to manage all of the State’s 11 forest parks and its 150 recreational sites; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8604/13]
Coillte appears to be the flavour of the day. On the Deputy's question of whether Coillte will continue to manage all of the State's 11 forest parks and 150 recreational sites, the short answer is "Yes." I cannot make a long-term prediction in terms of the business model under which Coillte operates, but there is no intention on the part of the Government or my Department to move responsibility for the recreational management of vast forest estates from Coillte to another body. That is the current position. If at some stage in the future this changes because of policy on how we manage Coillte as an asset and semi-State company in conjunction with others, we will give due consideration to the matter. As of today, there is no plan to remove responsibility for the management of recreational sites or forest parks from Coillte. Coillte does a really good job in this area, particularly in recent years, through its opening up of considerable lands to walkways, cycle trails, wildlife, biodiversity and so on. It takes its responsibility in terms of environmental and ecological management seriously. Our considerations in regard to Coillte relate to the sale of commercial timber which will be felled in the future for financial return. That is what is being looked at. In that context, we are seeking to protect the amenity and access value of parkland and mature forest which will never be felled.
I agree fully that the management of the recreational sites has been hugely beneficial to ordinary citizens and from a tourist perspective. However, if the sale of the commercial entity, in terms of harvesting rights, comes into conflict with the recreational entity, how does the Minister propose to deal with the matter? He has stated that as of now the intention is to protect this aspect of Coillte's operations, but it is not evident from his response that this will not change. There is evidence to the contrary.
I have consistently said throughout the debate on the harvesting rights issue that we want to do two things. First, we need to protect the asset, in terms of woodland, parkland, public access, trails, cycle ways and other amenities, that is, the national forest estate that is of real public interest. Second, we need to ensure the industry that has been built up in accessing timber from Coillte forests remains intact.
In the context of any sale, those considerations are paramount and they will remain so. I hope I have some credibility when I say that we do not want to undermine the public access to mature and not so mature forests and the amenities in which Coillte has invested and built up, particularly in recent years but also during the past number of decades. The Deputies will have to accept my word for it when I say that the policy we are currently considering will protect that asset because it is a valuable State asset that we should not compromise. I cannot be any clearer than that.
Deputies O'Donovan, Boyd Barrett, Wallace and Luke 'Ming' Flanagan have indicated they wish to speak on this. I call Deputy O'Donovan.
I welcome the Minister's commitment in this regard. It is very important. There are several State-owned forests in my constitutency. The partnership model that has been developed by the local authorities, the Leader companies, the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, Fáilte Ireland and other such bodies is important. The Ballyhoura Mountains in my area of south Limerick is a prime example of where recreation can sit cheek by jowl with the commercial aspect of the forest.
As we move forward with this, will the Minister examine the partnership model that is in place throughout the country with a view to ensuring that his colleague, the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, the sports partnerships, the local authorities and everybody else, including the people who use the forests, form part of a consultative process? There is a good deal of misinformation and scaremongering about what is in effect the sale of timber and people are drawing every sort of a red herring into it. The assurances the Minister has given in the Dail today go some way towards allaying those fears. I ask that such a consultative process would continue at local level.
The Minister's most recent response is the most worrying I have heard yet. He said he is giving assurances and then he said that things might change in the future. How can we be confident of his assurances that public access to State forestry will be protected if the profitable part of Coillte's business is sold off and the State is left holding the baby in terms of the public amenity element? If the revenue-generating element of State forestry is sold off to the private sector, it seems that either we will forced to sell the public amenities later or we will be forced to start charging for admission to those amenities, both of which would be utterly unacceptable. To my mind, the best thing the Minister could do is abandon this sad and sorry plan.
I would like the Minister to clarify a few points. Am I right in thinking he is saying that under no circumstances will we sell anything under foot? Given that he has a pretty good handle on what is happening in Coillte, he has been involved in this area for a good while and given the information he has to date, what is his lowest price for the sale of the harvesting rights? Can he give a guarantee that for as long as he is a Minister during the term of this Dáil he will not agree to the privatisation of Coillte?
If at the end of this process the Minister rightfully decides not to sell Coillte, what is the plan then? What will he do with this company that got 7% of our land 22 years ago and that has made such a massive success of it that it is hundreds of millions of euro in debt, cannot pay its staff pensions and it brought back to the State only one dividend of €10 million which it accrued by selling part of the land it got for nothing in the first place? If at the end of this process the Minister decides he will not sell it, what will he do to make sure that this very badly run company is run better?
I will deal with Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan's questions first. It is not appropriate to answer the question he posed until we make a decision on the sale. It is important to say that Coillte, like every semi-State company in Ireland, is going through a reform process to reduce its cost base which it needs to go through; it has been doing that to become more commercially viable, and that process will continue. However, this issue is a huge factor in the future decision-making around Coillte as regards its asset base. We need to bring some certainty to that issue and we will do that pretty quickly.
On Deputy Wallace's questions, there was never a proposal to sell any land under foot that Coillte currently owns as part of Government policy and that is still the case. The Deputy asked what is the lowest price for the sale of the harvesting rights. That is a question to which he will get an answer when a Government decision is made on this. There are no plans to privatise Coillte as a company.
On Deputy Boyd Barrett's questions, in terms of the idea that one cannot sell an asset and allow a company to survive because it loses such a large asset, forests will still need to be serviced and managed, there will be contracts in place if there is a new owner-----
How will we fund them?
-----and such management will need to be funded by any potential new owner. Forests have been sold previously; this is not rocket science. They will need to be managed, harvested in time and in the meantime the thinings need to be managed. That will involve a service contract that will be in place if there is a new owner, which obviously Coillte is likely to be involved in. Let us deal with these questions in some detail either here or in committee when the Government makes a decision on this issue.
On Deputy O'Donovan's questions, the partnership model is quite a good one that we need to consider. I am a regular user of Coillte forests from a recreational point of view in places like Currabinny and Farran. I regularly take my dog for a run there-----
Or he takes the Minister.
-----or he takes me, to try to forget about the madness of my job sometimes. I am more than aware of the value to the communities of these extraordinary natural resources and we are not going to compromise those.