Éamon Ó Cuív
Question:1. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the progress made to date in the Common Agricultural Policy negotiations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29488/13]
Priority Questions
Common Agricultural Policy Negotiations
The Deputy is right to ask for an update on CAP reform. We have reached the end game in a decision-making process that we commenced in January at the start of our Presidency. I am flying to Brussels this afternoon which is one of the reasons I will need to leave questions a little earlier than normal - I also have a Cabinet meeting. I will meet the Commissioner tomorrow and the Chairman of the European Parliament Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. Together we will try to map out a route to a decision by Wednesday or Thursday of next week, I hope. The final Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting of Ireland's Presidency will start in Luxembourg formally on Monday morning, but it will effectively start on Sunday morning when we will have trilateral meetings with Ministers and the Commission to try to finalise the bottom lines and negotiating priorities for individual countries and Ministers.
We have invited the European Parliament to come and be part of the Council meeting, if one likes, and part of the negotiations at that Council meeting. This is a first and has never happened before but we have never done this before. We have never had 27 - soon to be 28 - countries deciding on a Common Agricultural Policy reform process and in an equal process with the European Parliament and European Commission. We hope that on Monday and Tuesday in that Council meeting we will make substantial progress in agreeing the Council of Ministers final negotiating mandate taking account of the concerns of the Commission and the Parliament so that we will be in a position to go to Brussels to have a final trialogue next Wednesday, I hope, with the European Parliament to conclude a political deal on the Common Agricultural Policy, all going well. That could then be confirmed by the European Parliament Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, which hopes to have a meeting in the European Parliament in Brussels on Wednesday evening. That is the scheduling and process.
The Deputy is very familiar with the key issues, including greening, internal and external convergence, young farmers, market management, crisis support, sugar, milk quotas and the other things. They are being addressed through four different regulations that are all being negotiated at the same time. We planned for 34 trialogues to get to a landing zone or a compromise on all of these issues. We have had 31 of those so far and two more will take place this week with, hopefully, the final trialogue next week.
The Minister is well over his two minutes, but he will get further time in answering the supplementary questions.
We are on schedule for a decision next week, I hope. We cannot take that for granted as much work remains to be done. However, we are on schedule and I would be hopeful we can get the job done before the end of next week.
Is the Minister confident there will be agreement on the four regulations?
I would be hopeful.
Will a minimum payment on the single payment form part of the agreement? Will the Minister be able to achieve an option of a reference year of either 2012 or 2013 - in other words an historical reference year rather any future one?
I will not give the Deputy any certainties now in terms of the outcome, but I believe the final compromise is likely to have a minimum payment. The negotiation is on the level of that minimum payment, which obviously has an impact on the level of redistribution between farmers in terms of the internal convergence model that Ireland has essentially designed and has been accepted by the Council in principle and forms the basis of the compromise towards which we are now moving. I have spent much time with farming organisations discussing this issue. I hope the final agreed compromise is one that can allow Irish agriculture to progress in the way in which we want it to.
Ireland is probably the only country seeking a reference year in the past rather than in the future. I do not understand why other countries are not as concerned as I am on this issue. However, I will continue to press for the setting of a reference year that does not impact on speculation or changed behaviour anticipating a reference year in 2014 or 2015. In March we successfully made the case for the option of a 2012 or 2013 reference year and I will continue to make that case up to the end of next week.
Before I ask my second supplementary question, I welcome and congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Hayes. I know his commitment to farming and I am sure he will do an outstanding job in the new role he has been given.
Would the Minister not agree that his proposals on internal convergence and greening do not reflect productivity, if productivity of livestock farms is measured by stocking density, by natural nitrogen or organic nitrogen output per hectare and so on? Based in Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine figures the farmers getting either more than €400 per hectare or €500 per hectare are only on average about twice as productive as all of the 50,000 farmers who get less than €250 per hectare, in other words an average of €125 per acre each. The Minister is basing his argument on productivity and active and productive farmers that we have heard perpetually from the Minister and certain farming organisations. The Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine figures do not bear out his argument and show very high levels of productivity from the farmers who are getting very low payments.
I ask the Deputy to ask a question, please.
Would the Minister not agree that the relativities he is trying to protect have no relationship to productivity?
I would not agree with that, which is no surprise. The figures I have given to the Deputy I have also seen regarding stocking rates.
There is no justification for a farmer being on €900 or from €1,000 to €1,300 per hectare. Although the stocking density increases as the payment increases, in other words, there is a correlation between the most productive farmers and the highest payments in general, the difference between those on the lowest payments and those on the highest payments in terms of the stocking rate are not in the same ratio as the difference in terms of their supports. That is why we are committed to redistribution. People on the lowest payments will gain the most and people on the highest payments will lose the most.
We are not proposing to maintain the status quo. That was never the Irish model that I advocated. We are proposing to have a gradual redistribution of money that will take money from farmers who have the highest payments, even if they are highly productive, to ensure that farmers on low payments, even if they are not so productive, will see a move towards the average. However, we are going to avoid the type of shock treatment that Deputy Ó Cuív would like to see, whereby we would equalise everyone onto an average payment and one would see dramatic cuts to productive farmers and, by doing so, put farmers out of business.
Minister, we are over time on this question.
I will not allow that to happen, I have not allowed that to happen and the final result next week will not allow that to happen either.
Departmental Offices
Martin Ferris
Question:2. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the number of offices that his Department intends to close around the State. [29620/13]
My Department has no plans to close down any more local offices, the Deputy will be glad to hear. However, following a successful restructuring of my Department's local office network, the number of local offices was reduced from 58 to 16. This was an impressive exercise and the civil and public servants working in my Department did a fantastic job in this regard.
My Department has reviewed the business processes and procedures and, in particular, the administrative support requirements in its remaining local offices. Arising from this review, the Department introduced several significant changes earlier this year to the procedures for the implementation of controls in the context of the TB eradication programme. These changes and, in particular, the decisions not to take up passports from restricted herds and to abolish the movement permit requirement for clear cattle in restricted herds have significantly reduced the administrative staffing requirement in the local offices. In light of these changes and the falling incidence of disease in Ireland the review also recommended that further substantial efficiencies would accrue from the centralisation of administrative support in one or more centralised offices. My Department is in the process of implementing this recommendation and has already transferred the administrative functions out of several local offices. The transfer of the administrative functions out of other regional offices will be considered in light of the availability of opportunities to redeploy the staff concerned to support other critical public services. I should emphasise that these changes will not negatively impact upon local access and services for local customers. Front-line services will be fully maintained and public access for all of the Department's stakeholders will continue to be available at all 16 regional offices. The Department vets, inspectors and technical officers will remain in place at these offices to service our clients across all of the schemes that are provided from our regional offices.
I suspect what Deputy Ferris is getting at relates to Tralee and Killarney.
Briefly Minister, because you are over time already.
Perhaps I will come back to it if Deputy Ferris asks a supplementary question.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I congratulate the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Tom Hayes, on his promotion. I suppose it will be the only medal Tipperary will get this year, but he might think differently about it.
The transfer of administrative staff will have a major impact on the people concerned. This goes back to the 45 km decision under the Croke Park agreement, which, I believe, was a disgraceful negotiation under which the leaders of the trade union movement were effectively compromising on the least well off in the public service. I have before me the payments to the public servants to which I referred. The net weekly pay for clerical staff is €487.20. Most of the people I know on that income are being redeployed. There is a round trip of 78 km per day or 400 km per week without any subsistence or any travel expenses going towards it. It is disgraceful that people on the lowest income in the public service, many of whom have mortgages, young families and houses in negative equity, to keep their jobs are compelled to travel that distance despite the losses and so forth.
Deputy, can I ask you to put your supplementary question, please?
Does the Minister agree? Is there any way this can be looked at again? Is there any way that those being redeployed should be given a transfer in their area? There are other Departments in Tralee where these ten clerical officers could be redeployed rather than putting them through the terrible trauma of travelling to and from Killarney on a daily basis and given the cost factor associated with it and the impact it is having on them and their families.
I probably should have come to that particular issue earlier. The decision to centralise administrative functions is already being implemented. Administrative work has already been transferred out of several regional offices successfully, notably those in Ennis, Clonakilty, Limerick and Tipperary, without any negative implications for the provision of services to farm clients.
I realise this has put several people out in terms of having to travel further distances to work. Tralee is next on the list. While there are currently no available redeployment options in Tralee for departmental staff, the establishment of a shared payroll service in Killarney has led to a request from the relevant agency to transfer our Tralee staff to the shared payroll services in Killarney. The Department is prepared to accede to this request and will do so in line with the procedures laid down in the Croke Park agreement. The staff in Tralee have exercised their right under the Croke Park agreement to have the matter referred to the Labour Relations Commission for arbitration. My understanding is that an initial hearing took place yesterday, 18 June. When we get some feedback from that process we will obviously take it into account.
I assure Deputy Ferris that one of my jobs as the head of the Department is to try to look after my staff as best I can.
Thank you, Minister.
We are trying to do that while, at the same time, introduce the necessary changes to reduce the cost of running the Department and maintain services in order that we can spend more money on farmers, farming schemes, supporting agriculture and so on. That is what we are trying to do and in so doing we are not asking anyone to step aside and no one will lose their jobs. Their jobs are safe and are being maintained. We are asking administrative staff to move from one Department to another and, in this case, to move from Killarney to Tralee.
Minister, we are over time on this question.
Let us wait and see what the Labour Relations Commission process brings up and we will certainly take it into account.
Briefly, Deputy Ferris, because we are well over time.
I understand.
I will allow you a little time.
I am entitled to ask a supplementary question.
You are, but before we go on I wish to remind Ministers and Deputies that there are six minutes in total for each question, with two minutes for the Minister to reply and then four minutes for supplementary questions over and back.
I wish to put a supplementary question.
We have gone way over, but I will allow you some latitude. Go ahead, Deputy.
The concern I have for these workers is that many have a problem with this. At least one is a single parent with a young daughter and is living off €478.20 per week. That person will be spending a further €60 or €70 per week on transport without any certainty about whether there will be reimbursement. That is a serious problem. One of the people involved has a mortgage and all of them are in negative equity. It is a serious problem and it needs to be addressed. I hope the Labour Relations Commission will come down and grant them their entitlements but it is up in the air at the moment. I appreciate the fact that the Minister has stated he does not want any of his staff penalised as a consequence of redeployment, but it is important that there is some certainty for them for the future.
We are moving on to Question No. 3 but first I wish to reiterate that six minutes in total is the time allocated for each question, with two minutes for the Minister to reply and then four minutes for supplementary questions. I call on the Minister to be as brief as possible and we will get to as many questions as we can.
Point taken.
Fishing Industry Development
Thomas Pringle
Question:3. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the role he envisages for Bord Iascaigh Mhara in developing a seafood innovation centre in Killybegs, County Donegal; the way he sees the Killybegs campus of Letterkenny Institute of Technology, LYIT, complementing that role; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29487/13]
I am committed to continuing the path set out in the report of the high level group on the Killybegs jobs initiative, which reported in October 2011. The report identified the potential for establishing Killybegs as a centre for research and innovation.
Recommending an integrated approach, the report seeks to position Killybegs as the premier fisheries port of the north-west Atlantic. During 2012, Ireland secured a high share of boarfish quota, approximately 56,000 tonnes, and the development project linked to that has now become very much part of the broader development plan for seafood in Killybegs.
With regard to the development of a seafood innovation hub at Letterkenny Institute of Technology, LYIT, School of Tourism, Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM, and LYIT have been engaged in a range of activities incorporating knowledge and technology transfer between the seafood development centre and the Killybegs campus, including joint meetings and a visit by the LYIT management to Clonakilty to assist in the development of seafood innovation on the campus. As part of the BIM-Donegal Enterprise Board seafood business programme, a number of workshops with industry participants have been held successfully in LYIT.
Currently BIM and LYIT are engaged in a series of practical partnerships aimed at supporting and developing local seafood processing companies. The initiatives of this partnership include market research through the deployment of master's students, industry workshops and, in particular, new product development projects focused on the crab and pelagic sector. The LYIT Killybegs campus offers excellent culinary facilities and opportunities to develop and test new seafood products at the pre-commercialisation stage. A particular focus is on developing new opportunities for boarfish products.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
In 2012, the pelagic sector generated approximately €64 million in additional export revenues. As pelagic exports are located primarily around Killybegs, BIM actively supports the development of a seafood innovation centre at the LYIT school of tourism in Killybegs. It is anticipated that this approach will support the shift from commodity to value-added pelagic, salmon and crab exports. I expect that the concerted and ongoing marketing of Killybegs as a premier port will position Killybegs as a port of choice for international fishing fleets, capable of facilitating port logistics, local expertise and services.
I congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Hayes, on his appointment.
The Minister might not be aware that LYIT is in the process of preparing a three-year business plan to help it deal with its deficit. Active consideration is being given to relocating the Killybegs branch to the Letterkenny campus. That would have a detrimental effect on the seafood industry and would reduce the potential for developing links with BIM and the further development of the seafood business innovation centre on the Killybegs campus. It was for that reason that I raised the matter today. It is vital that a campus be maintained in Killybegs. The work of BIM, supported and encouraged by the Department, would ensure that the campus would continue to grow and develop. It is important that we send a signal to impress on the management of LYIT the need to develop and sustain the campus in Killybegs and to support the local seafood industry and its development. BIM has a representative on the board of governors and I urge the Minister to use his office to impress on them the importance of maintaining the facility in Killybegs.
I did not know that, and I am pleased the Deputy informed me of it. I will inquire about the matter. It does make sense to have a presence in Killybegs, as that is where the fish are landed. Killybegs is by far Ireland’s largest fishing port, certainly for the pelagic industry. I must be careful not to get into the decision-making process LYIT must make in terms of where it develops and spends money. That is not my role. My role is a supportive one - to try to bring the various stakeholders together to ensure that we maximise the potential of Killybegs as a port and the potential of the seafood industry both through Killybegs and through the broader infrastructure within Donegal. I will make inquiries into the concerns expressed by Deputy Pringle, but in the meantime we will continue to provide the supports to BIM and other stakeholders that have been given for the past two years. This has been a joint effort. Deputy Pringle might remember that I was somewhat frustrated at the initial cynical response to the jobs initiative. The cynicism is now gone and people realise that we are serious about it and we are investing in it. We will continue to do that. I will follow up on the specific concern raised by the Deputy.
I thank the Minister for his response. I understand his difficulty in terms of the decision-making process but for the development of the region and of the seafood sector it is important that we have a third level campus in Killybegs that can be accessed by the industry and the community as a whole. The decision is due to be made in the next couple of days so I urge the Minister to make contact fairly quickly.
Common Fisheries Policy Reform
John Browne
Question:4. Deputy John Browne asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the up-to-date position regarding the Common Fisheries Policy negotiations; the reason he did not have the Hague preferences enshrined in the report; and if he will make one last effort to have it included. [29490/13]
I thank Deputy Browne, a former Minister of State in the Department, for raising the matter. It gives me an opportunity to update the House on the result the Irish Presidency has achieved, along with the European Parliament and the Commission, on finalising a Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, reform process that is radical, hugely progressive and will ensure that we still have a fishing industry in ten, 20 or 50 years’ time. We now have a very ambitious reform plan that is implementable, but we will need to work closely with the sector and we will need to support it both financially and from a policy point of view in order for it to be able to implement the change.
The level of support for the reform is significant. Yesterday in the European Parliament the Committee on Fisheries, PECH, voted 20 to one in favour of CFP reform. At the Council representative body, essentially of ambassadors, in COREPER, 27 countries voted in favour of CFP reform. When one sees the largest commercial fishing fleet in the European Union, represented by the Spanish Government, and the Green Party in the European Parliament both voting in favour of reform, one begins to realise that the policy is very broad and ambitious and that is implementable and realistic for the industry.
With regard to Ireland’s concerns, we had some specifics that we needed to get out of the reform in terms of protecting certain things. First, we needed to prevent the privatisation of quotas, and we did that. We had that debate a year ago and that was off the agenda because of our stance a long time ago. We have introduced what fishermen want and what the public want, namely, a way to phase out the discarding of fish, which is very much needed. We have protected the Irish Box in no uncertain terms as per the text of CFP reform. We have introduced a regional decision-making process that will allow fishermen to have a say directly in how their fisheries are run locally. Again, for the first time there is agreement on that.
We have added to the wording of the Hague preferences, albeit in a recital, because it was not possible to enshrine the Hague preferences in the CFP reform text itself, as that would have resulted in a vote. As there are only two countries that benefit from the preferences - namely, Ireland and the UK - any politician would know that we could not have won that vote. The next best option was to support and enhance what is currently the case with the Hague preferences, whereby we invoke them in December each year and make the political case for them. We will continue to do that in the future and we will continue to be successful in benefitting from the Hague preferences.
I join in the good wishes to the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Hayes, and hope he will ensure the productive farmers of the south east are protected in the CAP negotiations.
It is a very consistent approach.
I am sure the Minister is aware of the importance of the fishing industry to coastal communities, involving more than 12,000 jobs and more than 2,000 fishing vessels. The Minister referred to support for the CFP in the European Parliament but there does not seem to be the same level of support among the Irish fisheries organisations. I have had representations from Kilmore Quay to Castletownbere to Killybegs, all outlining the serious concerns of fishermen. Fishermen also feel they were excluded from many of the negotiations before they were finalised at European level. Will the Minister comment on that?
Does the Minister accept that the discard compromise is unworkable from an Irish whitefish point of view given the mixed nature of the fisheries in which the vast majority of whitefish vessels operate? Fishermen have expressed serious concern to me in this regard. They also feel that the Minister should seek to have the Hague preferences included because they believe that at some stage in the future - I know the situation as I attended negotiations on previous occasions and we always managed to get them included - the present arrangement might not be sufficient and we might not always win the war. They believe it is important that the Hague preferences be included in the new CFP.
First, in respect of discards, I do not accept this is not implementable. One reason this took so long to negotiate was we were obliged to figure out a way to end discards and to introduce an obligation to land, with some exceptions, while at the same time doing so in a way that could allow fishermen on the deck of a trawler to deliver that change and reform. Management tools have been introduced to allow them to do this. For example, the proposal allows for interspecies flexibility in terms of quota management and for inter-annual flexibility for fishermen in respect of quota management. Moreover, allowances will be made for fishermen to make the case that if they cannot avoid the catching of adult fish in a mixed fishery after they have used technical conservation measures such as mesh size, escape hatches or whatever and they have used the other flexibilities that allow them to have quota flexibility between species and between years, they will have what is called a de minimis rate of discarding allowed, of up to 5% for the fleet. Consequently, there are practical measures that the fishing industry was very much involved in influencing, talking about, designing and so on. I do not accept that point and would not have signed up to the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, reform if I thought this was not implementable. The other point is this proposal does not begin until 2016. There is plenty of time to prepare for that and to design an implementation plan to ensure it works.
What negotiations has the Minister had with the fishing organisations since the conclusion of the talks? What plans does he have to have discussions with them in the future?
I speak with representatives of the fishing organisations all the time. After every significant decision at Council level, I meet the fishing organisations first, even before speaking to a journalist or anyone else, and I did this immediately after the final negotiating mandate for the Council was agreed. Essentially, that now is more or less what is in the CFP reform. We met representatives of all the fishing organisations that were present at that Council meeting and gave them a debriefing, as I always do. However, the leaders of all the key fishing organisations have my mobile telephone number. They ring me when they have concerns on a regular basis and the idea there is no consultation or no access to me from the fishing industry is simply untrue.
I thank the Minister. He has answered the question.
What is true is that I have not been able to spend as much time as I would like to spend in fishing ports and among fishing communities. I will try to address this over the summer.
Departmental Investigations
Luke 'Ming' Flanagan
Question:5. Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the actions he is taking in view of the report on alleged fraud in Coillte which was delivered to him by this Deputy and members of the timber saw milling industry some weeks ago; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29587/13]
I thank the Deputy and note he was tweeting earlier today that I would be answering this question. In the first instance, I wish to clarify that this matter relates to alleged irregularities, which are not specifically about Coillte, but which also have a wider perspective. This is an issue the Deputy has mentioned on a number of occasions, both in the Dáil and in the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine. At the time, I asked the Deputy, if he had evidence on which I could act, to give it to me and I would act on it. I also advised that if there were questions which needed to be asked of the Coillte board about any type of fraudulent activity, I also would ask those questions. I have followed up as a result of the evidence the Deputy has provided.
As the Deputy is aware, due to other commitments I was not in a position to meet him personally to obtain the background information but I arranged for relevant senior officials of my Department to meet the Deputy and the members of the sawmilling industry to hear their concerns. That meeting was held on Wednesday, 29 May last and since then, it has been arranged that two officials from the forestry service of my Department would investigate the issue raised. I understand they have thoroughly reviewed the material received and will revert directly to the other attendees at the original meeting, as well as to Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan. I understand they also will be in contact with An Garda Síochána to ascertain the status of a complaint which was previously lodged with it.
Having noted the subject at issue, I am reluctant to discuss this matter without further investigation but I wish to reassure the Deputy, as previously advised by a senior official in my Department, that this issue will be investigated thoroughly and that the Deputy and representatives of the sawmilling industry will be given an update on progress shortly. I understand it was made clear to Deputy Flanagan that the Department would not be in a position to give him a detailed outcome of that investigation by today's Question Time. However, as soon as we credibly can do that, we will give information to the Deputy without delay. I cannot be more helpful than that on this issue.
At the time the aforementioned meeting took place, for some reason I was under the impression that the Minister would be in the House for Question Time on 12 June. We were given a promise at the meeting by the departmental official that the Department would be carrying out an investigation and would revert to us within three to four weeks. As it only has been three weeks since 10 a.m. today, another week will not break our hearts as this issue has been ongoing for more than a decade. It initially was brought up on 13 February with my friend, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, and was brought up in the Private Members' motion on forestry tabled by another great friend, Deputy Boyd Barrett - that sounds ominous - as well as at this meeting. If we are obliged to wait for another week, then so be it. I hope something finally is being done about it because unless this is the case, according to my information it has massive implications for the viability of the sawmilling industry. While I am not very savvy in the business world, were the Government still thinking of selling Coillte, it also would have implications there. Were I personally to buy something, I would like to ascertain whether all the books were correct in respect of what I was buying and so on.
I ask the Deputy to conclude.
I can wait another week but I hope those involved get fair treatment, because it takes some bravery to come forward with the information with which they came forward.
I spoke at some length to the departmental official the Deputy met and to whom he spoke. He is the Department's knowledge leader in respect of the forestry sector and he stated he is anxious to get to the bottom of this and to bring it to a conclusion before the end of the month. That is only another week or ten days.
Since the Deputy has mentioned the Coillte decision, I will be leaving the Chamber in approximately five minutes to attend a Cabinet meeting. Unusually, a Cabinet meeting is being held on a Wednesday rather than a Tuesday and I am bringing a recommendation on Coillte to the Cabinet today. Consequently, the Deputy will get an answer to his questions on the future of Coillte's harvesting rights and the Government's attitude to that, as well as to other issues regarding Coillte such as the potential of restructuring the company and so on. This is a decision I hope the Government will be able to take in an hour or so. This is just to inform the House.
Give Members a clue.
I presume the Minister will not tell Members in advance. Obviously, everyone will be waiting with bated breath for that decision. Regardless of the decision the Government will take, I hope it takes into account everything that has been said on the subject, as well as the impact it will have on the sawmilling industry etc. This House is at times rightfully criticised because of an absence of good debate on subjects but on this issue, there has been excellent debate. The question now is whether, after an excellent debate on the subject, it will be listened to because otherwise it was pointless.