Vol. 830 No. 1
90. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the progress that has been made in the inspection of the 56 ocean bays awaiting approval in the context of the issuing of fish farming licences; and when he envisages that the surveys of these bays will be completed. [6320/14]
When will the surveys relating to the 56 ocean bays that are awaiting approval in the context of the issuing of fish farming licences be completed?
In 2007 the European Court of Justice, ECJ - in case C418/04 - declared that by failing to take all measures necessary to comply with Article 6.3 of the EU habitats directive in respect of the authorisation of aquaculture programmes, Ireland had failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive. As most aquaculture activity takes place in Natura 2000 areas, it is necessary to undertake appropriate assessments of the effects of aquaculture activity on these areas before any new licences can be issued or any existing licences can be renewed.
In the negotiations to address the ECJ judgment, a process was agreed with the European Commission. This process includes the following steps: data collection in respect of 91 bays or estuaries; detailed analysis of the raw data collected; the setting of conservation objectives by the National Parks and Wildlife Service in respect of each site; the carrying out of appropriate assessments - by the Marine Institute - of aquaculture or fishery activities against the detailed conservation objectives set; and determination of licences or fisheries on the basis of the appropriate assessments and other relevant factors. The carrying out of detailed surveys of marine habitats and species has been completed. Conservation objectives have now been set for over 60 bays. Appropriate assessments have been completed in respect of Castlemaine Harbour, Dundalk Bay, Roaringwater Bay, Lough Swilly and Donegal Bay. This process has begun to achieve meaningful results. In 2013, I made a total of 137 licence determinations, of which approximately 120 were in respect of sites in Natura areas. I expect to be in a position to make in excess of 200 determinations in 2014. The appropriate assessment process represents a significant financial, administrative and scientific investment by the State. The issue of resources is kept under continuous review having regard to the importance my Department attaches to this issue.
In other words, we are moving as fast as we can by moving through the bays, one by one. We are trying to arrive at a position where we can provide licences to everyone who is eligible to be appropriately licensed. This is a priority for my Department. The current situation is not acceptable where people have out of date licences requiring renewal. We are putting systems in place to deal with licensing efficiently and effectively. More important, a significant number of people want to invest in developing this sector, including setting up new aquaculture farms.
Thank you, Minister. I must call Deputy Ferris now.
Those people need and deserve efficient treatment by the State.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I find it difficult to comprehend the delay in the renewal of out-of-date licences. This delay is having an effect on the potential for job creation The Minister says he is doing the best he can and I do not dispute it. However, the Minister should know that there is a lot of concern about the delay which is quite frustrating, to put it mildly.
I share that frustration. Unfortunately, we are now making policy decisions that should have been made many years ago under previous Governments. The approach to aquaculture licensing was not fit for purpose. The Commission has called us to account and we have to put in place a gold-plated system to the satisfaction of the Commission; otherwise, the consequences for the industry would be very difficult. Licensing is a priority issue for my Department and for the Marine Institute and BIM. Robust and detailed assessments of all aquaculture licences are required so that we only allow aquaculture to develop in areas where it is appropriate. This is an important consideration as the strong environmental lobby will hold us to account if we do not do that job properly. Deputy Ó Cuív will know this well as he has raised concerns about issues in this area on many occasions. My job as Minister is to gather the scientific evidence in order to determine the licences. We are working overtime to assess the bays, to carry out the necessary environmental impact assessments and the detailed environmental assessment of any application.
I can report progress. Two years ago I considered approximately 114 applications. I considered 137 last year and this year the number will be more than 200. When one considers the record of my predecessor in this area and the number of applications that were even considered, it will be evident that we are making significant progress.
I will allow brief contributions from Deputies Mick Wallace and Clare Daly as we are out of time on this question.
We understand the necessity to carry out the appropriate assessments and that the Minister wants to put a gold-plated system in place. However, given that some people are waiting since 2010 for these assessments, is it the case that there is a shortage of manpower to deal with the problem? No one is saying that the regulations should be by-passed or that things should be done in anything less than a completely professional way, but I question whether the delay is due to a shortage of people to carry out the assessments.
I ask the Minister to deal with the damage to aquaculture operations as a result of the recent storms, not least the reports of the escape of 60,000 to 80,000 salmon from the Bantry Bay operation and what has been described as a potential ecological disaster. I believe BIM issued a statement today saying that there is no evidence that these fish escaped but 60,000 to 80,000 fish have disappeared from this area. As required under the licensing regulations, what reports has the Minister received of this very serious development?
If the Deputy is saying that BIM has no evidence to suggest there was any escape of salmon-----
BIM said it could not be confirmed.
The Deputy told me BIM said there was no evidence to suggest there was any escapage of salmon but then she told me with certainty that 60,000 escaped. Those two things do not tally. I do not have any report of salmon escaping. I specifically asked whether there were any problems with the Clare Island site because it is in deep water. It is not quite in open water, because it has the shelter of a number of islands, but it is certainly a very large site. I was told there were no problems at all during the stormy weather. I am asking questions in this regard but I have not had any reports of significant, or any, escapage in Bantry Bay or anywhere else. However, I will follow up on it now that the Deputy has raised it.
The issue of grant aid for aquaculture is a problem. Given what I have just outlined, we do not have sanction to spend EU money on the development of aquaculture projects which do not have up-to-date licences in areas which are SACs, Natura 2000 areas, and that is a problem and a frustration which is making it impossible for us to give grant aid to a sector which I am sure would like to benefit from that. We are working through those issues. When those projects are fully licensed under the new system, then we will be able to do that and I look forward to being in a position to do so.
91. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if Bord Iascaigh Mhara as licence holder, if granted, will be responsible for the insurance costs of the proposed fish farm in Galway Bay; if so the potential liability that would arise for the State; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6341/14]
In view of the recent storms and the implications they might have for the major fish farm proposed in Galway Bay, can the Minister clarify once and for all whether the issue of insuring the proposed fish farm in Galway Bay against all risks, including escapees, storm damage and so on, will rest with the operators rather than with BIM and the State?
The application by BIM for an aquaculture licence for the cultivation of finfish near Inis Oírr in Galway Bay was received by my Department in 2012. 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, as amended. As the application is under active consideration as part of the statutory process, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this time.
I am on record as saying that the strategic approach in deep sea aquaculture development has the potential to deliver much needed jobs in coastal communities. However, it is important to note that, as Minister, I have two distinct roles in regard to applications such as these. I have a developmental role in seeking to enhance Ireland’s production of seafood and I have a quite separate regulatory role which requires me to reach a determination in respect of aquaculture licence applications based on the wider public interest and all relevant national and EU legislation. I take the division between these two roles very seriously in respect of all aquaculture licence applications and the distinction is always strictly observed.
Regarding liability, any commercial losses an operator might incur in regard to the operation of a salmon farm would be a matter for the operator in question. It would be a routine requirement that any person or organisation taking on an aquaculture licence would be responsible for ensuring the appropriate insurance cover is in place.
Should BIM be successful in obtaining a salmon farming aquaculture licence in Galway Bay, any operator of that licence will be required to put in place appropriate measures designed to ensure that no financial liability would arise for the State in respect of the operation of the site. I hope that is clear.
Is the Minister telling me that if the regulatory Minister, Deputy Coveney, grants permission to the developmental Minister, Deputy Coveney, for the fish farm in Galway Bay that the developmental Minister, Deputy Coveney, will make absolutely certain there is no potential liability to the State, directly or through BIM, for any risk that might ever arise on that fish farm? Is he further telling me that BIM will be utterly indemnified even though it will be the licence holder if the regulatory Minister, Deputy Coveney, gives permission to the developmental Minister, Deputy Coveney, for this particular fish farm? Is the Minister able to give an absolute assurance that there will be 100% indemnity against any risk to the State?
The Deputy is trying to create a problem where there is not one.
The Minister is the one-----
Which Minister Coveney was Deputy Ó Cuív talking about?
I am getting confused myself. I am utterly confused.
It is not unusual for Ministers to aspire to develop an industry and also to have a regulatory function in terms of licensing. Unfortunately, the licensing system introduced by a previous Government, of which Deputy Ó Cuív was part, has caused us a great deal of problems.
The Government can change it.
We are changing the system. We have done so. That is why we now have a template for aquaculture licences, which is something the previous Government could never do.
The law has not changed. The law is the same.
That is why we now have an agreement with the Commission about how this should be done. Unlike the previous Government, we are doing it.
Is the Government changing the law?
The system is not a problem. The system can function and will function. I have answered the question about liability. If there is a problem with any fish farm in this country, the operator of that project will need to have liability in place. That will be part of the usual licensing application and delivery process. The same will apply to the project that is under consideration if it gets the go-ahead. That is a big "if" because many considerations must be studied before any decision is made on the Galway Bay project.
As the Minister has widened the question, can he give the House an indication of the timescale within which all of this consideration will be completed? Are we talking about another three months, six months or nine months? Can the Minister give us a ballpark indication of when a decision will be made?
When I met a group of residents from Galway before Christmas, they expressed major concern about the impact of this fish farm proposal on tourism in Galway Bay and the wider Galway city and county area. A second issue has arisen in the last week or so in light of the massive storms that have caused such damage along our coastline. Can the Minister give the residents a guarantee about the impact this fish farm would have on pollution and on those who use Galway Bay?
As I have said, this application is under consideration at the moment. I do not intend to debate the intricacies or details of this or any other application. The questions asked by Deputy McGrath must be answered in a very thorough way as part of that process, and they will be. I refer, for example, to the questions that have been asked about the engineering specifications that are required to deal with certain weather conditions. The farm on Clare Island, for example, has passed all the tests the weather has thrown up in recent months. Likewise, issues like pollution and tourism will be considered as part of this application. If all of these questions are not answered comprehensively, I will not grant a licence. If I decide to grant a licence, the appeals process will test the system all over again. That is why we have a system in place. We need to trust that system to make appropriate decisions on applications like this one.
The Minister did not answer my question about the timescale for this process.
I suspect that it will be concluded in about six months' time, but I am not sure.
92. Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the number of aquaculture licences he has received with respect to operating in Ballycotton Bay, County Cork; when an appropriate assessment of Ballycotton Bay, as required under the EU birds and habitats directives, will occur; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6333/14]
I am asking about the progress that has been made with an aquaculture licence application in respect of Ballycotton Bay in east Cork. I understand the Marine Institute, Bord Iascaigh Mhara and the National Parks and Wildlife Service have been considering a multi-annual work programme for quite some time and that it is basically complete. Can the Minister tell us the current position? When does he expect to be in a position to make a decision on the application in question?
Six aquaculture licence applications are awaiting determination in Ballycotton Bay, which is designated as a special protection area - a Natura 2000 site - under the EU birds directive. The European Court of Justice declared in case C418/04 that by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with Article 6(3) of the habitats directive in respect of authorisation of aquaculture programmes, Ireland failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. My Department is working closely with the Marine Institute, Bord Iascaigh Mhara and the National Parks and Wildlife Service to achieve full compliance with the birds and habitats directives through a multi-annual work programme. This programme entails the collection of necessary data in relevant marine Natura sites, the development of conservation objectives in those sites, the completion of appropriate assessments and the establishment of fisheries Natura plans and other arrangements to enable a progressive roll-out of determinations in line with the Natura obligations once all the preconditions are met.
It is a very long answer to a very short question. The process has begun to achieve meaningful results. Assessments have been completed in respect of Castlemaine Harbour, Dundalk Bay, Lough Swilly, Donegal Bay and Roaringwater Bay. We are accelerating the number of applications we are considering and in most cases granting because by the time it gets to me it has been sieved through the various assessment procedures. I will inquire as to where Ballycotton is positioned on that list and will come back directly to the Deputy with a more accurate date. I do not have it before me.
I thank the Minister for his reply. This has been ongoing for quite some time and I am delighted that some progress is being made. I would welcome the further information and ask the Minister to do what he can to expedite it, as it is a very important issue.
There is considerable frustration over aquaculture and nobody is more frustrated than I am. I must be clear, firm and consistent on every application that comes to me, whether it is an application for a very large operation in Galway Bay or for a small operation in Ballycotton. We are obliged to act in a way that is consistent with our commitments to the European Commission and we will do that so that when we license them they are licences that will last and will respect all the regulations with which we must comply. Unfortunately there are many irregularities which are being corrected at the moment. A considerable amount is happening in this area and we are accelerating the pace of consideration of licence applications. That is why I hope that people who have been waiting - in some cases for years - for decisions on new licences or the renewal of existing licences will get the consideration they need in the not too distant future, but it is taking time.
What is the untapped potential of this sector jobs-wise and from an economic point of view?
I will be somewhat vague on this. I believe the potential is significant. Europe views Ireland as probably having the cleanest aquaculture in the world. Our coast to the west and south west is open to the cleanest waters on the planet, in the Atlantic. That is why organic farmed salmon in Ireland commands a premium price on international markets and why Irish shellfish attracts so much interest from abroad. Demand from home and abroad is not the problem in this sector. The problem is the ability to produce in a way that is appropriate, maintains quality and reassures everybody who may have concerns about pollution, environmental management, marine life, bird life and so on. We need to get a balance in our use of bays between leisure and commerce, as we have here. The potential for growth and expansion in the aquaculture and finfish farming sector is very significant.
93. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the number of farmers who have received notification from his Department that they have over-claimed single farm payments since 2009. [6317/14]
I am asking about the number of farmers that have received notification from that Department that they have over-claimed single farm payments since 2009. This probably should have run with the Priority Question. How many have over-claimed?
I probably gave the Deputy most of the numbers on that earlier. I can probably read the answer for him again.
It is 4,800.
That is the number of farmers who want us to reconsider the issue and have sought an appeal. However, more than 4,800 farmers are involved here. I will send the Deputy the detailed answer I have here, rather than reading it out because we would run out of time if I did. Approximately 72% of farmers have no issue with mapping or eligibility. A further 20% approximately have made an over-claim of between 0% and 3%. So the money involved is relatively small. I would not like to dismiss it because it is important to the farmers concerned, but in relative terms it is not a significant amount of money. Some of those farmers have already repaid money to address the retrospective issue and are now in the clear.
Approximately 7% of farmers have an over-claim above 3%. I will send the Deputy the exact figures I have on that. A very small percentage of farmers have an issue with more than a 20% over-claim. Approximately 400 farmers nationally are in that category. We want to work with those farmers individually to deal with their issues around payments that they should not have got last year and the retrospective issue for the past four years. We will try to work with farmers. I am not in the business of putting farmers under any unnecessary financial stress. My Department is there to help this industry and nothing else but we must ensure the rules are kept and that if public money is spent on land that is not eligible for money that has been drawn down on it, we have to give it back. We have to examine the appropriate repayment mechanisms to allow that to happen in a way that will ease the financial burden on the relatively small number of farmers who are in that category. However, that is no consolation to the 400 farmers who are in that category but it is 400 out of approximately 130,000.
Question No. 94 in the name of Deputy Pringle cannot be taken as the Deputy is not present in the Chamber.
Questions Nos. 95 and 96 in the name of Deputy Ó Cuív cannot be taken as the Deputy is not present in the Chamber.
Question No. 97 in the name of Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan cannot be taken as the Deputy is not present in the Chamber.
Question Nos. 98 in the name of Deputy Ó Cuív cannot be taken as he is not present in the Chamber.
Question No. 99 in the name of Deputy Wallace cannot be taken as he is not present in the Chamber.
We will move on to Question No. 100 in the name of Deputy McConalogue who is present.
100. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his plans under the Common Agricultural Policy reform proposals to assist and support young farmers who have been farming for more than five years to build a viable farming enterprise; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6310/14]
I was not expecting to get in - it was well worth my while coming in early. What are the Minister's plans under the Common Agricultural Policy reform proposals to assist young farmers who have been farming for more than five years to build a viable farming enterprise? As the Minister is aware, the agreement on which he signed off in Brussels confined a definition of "young farmers" to those who have started farming now or any time within the past five years. That is my understanding of it. There is a significant category of farmers who are under the age of 30 or in their early thirties who have been farming for more than five years, many of whom are in receipt of very low single farm payments. If we are serious about trying to keep young farmers in farming - it is not only about attracting in new farmers which we must do - we have to provide a viable future for those who are already in the industry. I do not see how the Minister's proposals are doing that. What are his plans in this respect?
It is a reasonable question. During the negotiations at European level I have been strongly supportive of positively discriminating in favour of young farmers because we need generational change in this industry. Fewer than 6% of farmers are under the age of 35 in Ireland and that is no basis for the kind of growth and expansion we want for this sector. Everybody agrees we need more young farmers. What we are trying to do in terms of the 25% top-up on single farm payments up to 50 hectares, which is about €16,000 for the highest earners in that category over five years, is to give people a good start in farming to allow them to invest in building up their herds, their yards and so on. If a person is 38 years of age and he or she has been farming since he or she was 25 years of age, is he or she in the same category as a person who is 38 years of age who has been farming only since 36 years of age? One is a new and young farmer and the other is a farmer who has been farming for quite some time. One could also make the case that a person who is 41 years of age who has been engaged in farming only for the past two or three years should benefit from this because he or she is a relatively young farmer as opposed to a person who is in his or her late thirties who has been farming for ten or 15 years. We have only so much money to spend here and we had to categorise the type of farmer who would get a conversation going in farm families between parents and sons and daughters to hand over those farms to those sons and daughters, to get generational change in agriculture which is what this money is targeted at achieving. The cut-off point is farmers who have come into farming in the past five years and farmers who were under the age of 40; they will get a payment for up to five years as long as they remain under the age of 40. I thought that was a reasonable compromise and balance. We fought hard for it. Many countries did not want this to be a mandatory measure but because of the stand taken by Ireland and a number of other countries, along with the Commissioner I might add, this is now a mandatory measure across the European Union for all countries, including Ireland.
I disagree with the Minister that this is a reasonable proposal. He has said that 6% of farmers are under the age of 35. He outlined that he has confined the young farmer categorisation to those who are under the age of 40 and who have just started farming now or within the past five years. He has admitted that he has made no effort or no provision for those who are under the age of 35 and who have been farming for more than five years.
That is because we cannot; the regulation does not allow it.
The Minister is the person who negotiated the regulation. I cite the example of a young farmer who is 32 years of age who has a payment per hectare of €100 because historically more than ten years ago the farm was not farmed as extensively as it is now. That farmer - there are many of them - is considering whether he or she can continue to have a future in farming. Such farmers thought that the Common Agricultural Policy reform proposals would offer them a fair deal, in that, because they are now the persons who are farming they would have the opportunity, based on what they are doing at present, to get a fairer deal and have a viable future in the industry. The Minister has not given them a categorisation which would see them benefit or give them a viable future.
Thank you, Deputy.
Will the Minister do something in regard to the national reserve which would give such farmers a future and a fairer deal than that which he has given them, which is nothing more than what he has given to a person who has been in farming for all of his or her working life?
The idea that anybody would be trying to sell this as a bad deal for young farmers-----
Will the Minister explain what is in this for them?
-----is not doing justice to the new Common Agricultural Policy deal. There is more being done for young farmers in this Common Agricultural Policy reform than we have ever seen before.
What is the Minister doing for that farmer? What is he or she getting?
That is because of a stand Ireland, along with a number of other countries to support the Commission, took to try to get this mandatory measure of positive discrimination in favour of young farmers over the line. It was a success and acknowledged as such-----
The Minister is failing young farmers.
-----by young farming organisations. The Deputy is trying to pick case studies from around the country whereby he wants money to be given to everybody.
Yes. What about the farmer I mentioned? There are many more like him. What is the Minister doing for such farmers? Will he address that question?
Allow the Minister to conclude.
When we have a limited amount of money to spend, we have to prioritise who gets it. We have prioritised young farmers in their first years of farming. They will get priority treatment and that is what they will get under the negotiated Common Agricultural Policy, which has been welcomed by practically everybody except the Deputy.
For some, it may be their last year in farming as the Minister is not giving them a fair deal.
