Vol. 835 No. 2
1. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the increase in employment in the agriculture sector in the past year; the sectors of agriculture in which this increase in employment took place; the increase or decrease in employment in each NUTS 2 region; the reason for this increase in employment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13991/14]
We have continually heard Government spokespersons talk about an increase of 60,000 in employment in the past year. To achieve this, one would have needed an increase in direct employment in agriculture and fisheries of nearly 30,000. Can the Minister tell me where this employment was created and the regions in which it was created? What type of employment are we talking about?
The CSO's quarterly national household survey, QNHS, shows that there was an annual increase in employment of 3.3% or 61,000 in the year to the fourth quarter of 2013, bringing total employment to just over 1.9 million. Employment increased in ten of the 14 economic sectors over the year and fell in four.
The increase recorded in agriculture, forestry and fishing was up 29% or 26,800, giving a total of 116,800. The CSO has advised that due to necessary changes in the sampling framework introduced incrementally to reflect the 2011 census of population, the first fully valid year-on-year comparisons for the agriculture sector will only be available from Quarter 4 of 2014.
The CSO does not publish figures for the sub-sectors within agriculture, but QNHS data for Quarter 4 of 2013 shows that the agrifood sector makes a significant contribution to employment at national and regional levels. Table 1 sets out the employment figures for the total agrifood sector, including primary agriculture, forestry and fishing, as well as food, beverage and wood processing, and calculates its share of total employment by NUTS 2 and NUTS 3 region. This shows that while the agrifood sector accounted for over 9% of total employment in the State as a whole, it accounted for over 14% of employment in the Border, midlands and western, BMW, region. These figures underline the importance of the sector at a regional level, as well as the opportunities for further development that the implementation of Food Harvest 2020 will bring.
I am not sure whether Deputy Ó Cuív has a copy of the reply, but we break it down into the Border, midlands, west, Dublin, mid-east, mid-west, south-east and south-west regions in terms of the percentage of people employed in agriculture as regards total employment in those regions. The highest percentages are 15.3% in the midlands, 15.2% in the south-east, 14.3% in the Border region and 14.1% in the west. Obviously, the lowest percentage is in Dublin at 2%.
|
'000s |
All Employment |
Agrifood Sector* |
% of Total |
|
Border |
186 |
26.5 |
14.3% |
|
Midland |
111 |
17.0 |
15.3% |
|
West |
186 |
26.2 |
14.1% |
|
Border, Midlands & Western |
483 |
69.7 |
14.4% |
|
Dublin |
572 |
11.3 |
2.0% |
|
Mid-East |
226 |
15.4 |
6.8% |
|
Mid-West |
151 |
16.7 |
11.0% |
|
South-East |
197 |
29.9 |
15.2% |
|
South-West |
281 |
32.3 |
11.5% |
|
Southern & Eastern |
1,427 |
105.6 |
7.4% |
|
State |
1,910 |
175.3 |
9.2% |
The Minister might clarify whether the term "agriculture and fisheries" means agriculture and fisheries and not the wider agrifood sector.
Correct.
Therefore, obfuscating the growth in the agrifood sector does not fool me. Is the Minister really trying to tell me that anybody believes the BMW region outperformed the southern and eastern region in employment growth by two to one? Is he really telling me that anybody believes the south east was the best-performing region in terms of employment creation in this State, with an increase in employment of 8.4% last year, followed by the Border region, with an increase in employment of 8%, and the midlands region, with an increase of 5%, and that Dublin languished in fourth place with 2.7%? Is he telling me he really believes that 60,000 new jobs were created, or is he telling me that the CSO said that for reasons it pointed out, and to which the Minister has alluded, the figures actually show that employment creation in this State in the past year was half of the figure consistently quoted by Government Ministers?
The Deputy is over time. Will he please adhere to the rulings of the Chair?
I do not think the Deputy's assertion is true. I suggest that he speak to the CSO about it, which is what we have done. The CSO is standing over its figure of an extra 61,000 jobs in the economy. What it says is that we should look at the figure in individual sectors with some caution when the make-up of the sample changes somewhat. The overall figure is clear. When one has a sample as broad as those the CSO takes, and as households fill out forms, there are clearly 61,000 more people in work than there were 12 months ago. What the CSO is saying is that we should look with some caution at the make-up of those 61,000 jobs sector by sector, because the sample structure has changed. I can only work with the figures the CSO gives me. It is true to say that the sample to which we referred at the start was the primary agriculture, fishing and forestry sector and the story of the food industry and its performance over the past 12 months and the past three years also includes figures that come under manufacturing and processing, because clearly jobs have been created in companies that are expanding because of the growth in food output in Ireland.
When one reads the report, one can see it says there was an increase, which was the figure quoted by the Minister, of 26,800 in employment in agriculture and fisheries.
Extraordinarily, however, there was no increase in income tax revenue or the number of farmers claiming the single farm payment. Are those concerned all farm labourers or deckhands? Let us get real: the Minister and I know one of the main reasons is that those with a small farm, PAYE job and on jobseeker's benefit could no longer claim the benefit on becoming a full-time farmer. To claim these as new jobs in the economy is nonsense. Is the Minister standing by the claim that there has been a net increase of 30,000 in employment in agriculture and fisheries in the State in the past year?
I am answerable for many things, but I am not answerable for the CSO.
The Minister is the one quoting the figures without-----
The CSO is an independent body that compiles and publishes the numbers. They are the numbers we use. If I am asked how many jobs have been created in the economy in the past 12 months, I must go on the numbers of the CSO. They are the numbers I quoted and it is perfectly reasonable for me to do so. The CSO is entirely independent of my Department and the Government.
Did the Minister quote the caveat?
Of course I have done it.
We are over time. There is another Deputy waiting to ask a question.
I have done it today. The Deputy should not try to undermine what clearly is growth in this sector. Of course, there will not be an increase in the number claiming the single farm payment because the number of farms in the country, approximately 130,000, is not going to change overnight.
If so, from where does the figure of 30,000 come?
However, if there are more people deriving income from these farms and in full-time employment on these farms because income thereon has increased, that is not a bad thing.
Thirty seconds are allowed for the Deputy introducing the question. Two minutes are allowed for the Minister to respond, while one minute is allowed for each supplementary question. Therefore, six minutes are allowed in total. There are other Deputies whom we want to allow to contribute.
2. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he has attempted to procure export markets for live Irish beef to help alleviate the crisis being experienced by farmers here. [13993/14]
The Minister is probably aware of the reduction, not the collapse, in beef prices. My question pertains to live exports. What has he done about live exports? Has he opened new markets abroad? What is the potential in this regard?
That is a very reasonable question. There are difficulties in the beef market, particularly in the case of bull beef. We need to consider and are considering alternative outlets for farmers to try to ensure they get full value for their animals. I am aware of the difficulties being experienced in the beef sector by farmers with regard to certain categories of animals. However, exports of live cattle were up by some 25% in 2013 and from the start of this year to 9 March, the total live export figure stood at 41,943. Indications from live animal exporters are that the higher level of live exports will continue. Live export volumes were further boosted by a recent shipment of 2,500 bulls to Libya. The medium-term effect of the increased live exports will be a reduction in the availability of cattle for slaughtering later in the year and into next year and this should result in higher cattle prices for farmers.
Since my appointment as Minister, I have been very active in developing relationships in new and expanding international markets for dairy, beef and lamb products, with a view to raising the profile of Ireland and increasing international confidence in Irish production and control systems. My aim is to provide a platform for long-term trading relationships in these sectors, particularly in new and emerging markets to which I have led trade missions, including China, the United States, Japan, Algeria and the Gulf states in the Middle East. Moreover, there is ongoing close collaboration between my Department, Bord Bia and Irish embassies on improving market access and these initiatives have led to a number of notable successes in securing access to Irish beef from authorities in Japan, Singapore, Egypt and Iran. As recently as January, Lebanon agreed to reopen its market to Irish beef, sheepmeat and cooked meats. We are making very good progress in gaining access to the US market which will be very valuable. There is a formal working group, including the Chinese authorities, with a view to trying to gain access to the Chinese market. This work will take a little time. A considerable effort is rightly being made in my Department to try to seek new outlets for Irish meat. Let us not forget that as we export nearly 90% of all beef we produce, we must constantly find and develop new markets, including markets for live exports, particularly at a time when there is clearly an oversupply of a certain category of beef, namely, bull beef, in Ireland. That oversupply will last only for another couple of weeks, after which I hope we will see a normalisation of prices.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
With regard to the live cattle export trade, I am very conscious that this trade, whether to other EU member states or third countries, serves a dual purpose in stimulating price competition for domestic cattle and satisfying a real demand in overseas markets for specific types of animal. It thus complements the processing beef trade by providing alternative market outlets, thereby underpinning the meat and livestock industry generally.
My Department, in co-operation with Bord Bia and Irish embassies, will continue to support actively the development of both the live export trade and beef trade through the provision of market information, developing market access and promotional activity.
I thank the Minister for the reply. It is welcome that there was an increase in live exports of 25% in 2013. The Minister mentioned a shipment of 2,500 bulls to Libya, which is also to be welcomed. However, there are a number of problems in the beef sector. One is that, despite the Minister's best efforts, not enough bulls are being exported. There are not enough live exports in total. Furthermore, there is a problem with processors' cartels operating. They are able to manipulate the market. An overlapping question concerns the fact that if there is a cartel operating that is manipulating and controlling prices in the market, there is a lack of live exports that would otherwise help to put pressure on the cartels to give market value to the farmer and producer. All of these points must be taken into consideration and none should be considered in isolation. The Minister mentioned China, Japan, the United States and other markets opening up. These are not live export markets.
The immediate problem concerns live exports and, as Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív said, bulls.
Live exports have increased significantly this year. Almost 42,000 animals have been exported live this year. Live exports are really important in providing price competition among the factories and processors in Ireland. However, that is what they should be seen to be doing; we should not be seeking to have a huge volume of live exports because we want to try to keep the processing jobs in Ireland. There is a balance to be struck. Live exports are important to keep the factories honest, as farmers would put it, and provide competition to influence prices here, but we should still be trying to find a way to try to obtain the best price possible and slaughter as many animals as we can in Ireland in order to keep the processing and added-value jobs here.
We are working on trying to open new markets. Last year we worked very hard to try to get shipments to Libya for the first time in many years. This involves a ship-certification process. My Department has been working on prioritising this issue. We set very high standards, however, in terms of the quality of ships allowed to transport live animals. This is because we live on an island and realise ships carrying animals to north Africa, for example, must cross the Bay of Biscay in the middle of winter. It is a rough sea at the best of times. Therefore, we need to have the highest ship-certification standards in Europe and we do. The approach is working and there is an outlet which I hope is offering an option to farmers who are not getting the prices they want.
Live exportation removes pressure in terms of oversupply. Where there is oversupply and a cartel is operating-----
As long as the price is right.
I applaud and I am fully supportive of the Minister's point on jobs retention and processing. However, if producers are not making a living, the market will collapse in any case because they will no longer produce. This aspect must be considered also. It is welcome that the Minister is trying to open more markets abroad for live exports in addition to slaughtered beef. While this is welcome, the focus in the short term must be on trying to reduce oversupply through live exports.
We are trying to do that. We are also trying to put pressure on factories to kill more bulls. In this regard, I have met with officials from the factories and farming organisations and have received assurances that the factories will continue to kill a sufficient number of bulls the deal with the over-supply. Approximately 6,000 bulls per week have been killed over the past number of weeks.
That is the reason the price is decreasing.
There is a problem in that the market does not want this type of meat. There is an issue in relation to meat from bulls over 20 months. The markets are looking for steers and heifers from Ireland, generally. That is the view not only of the processors but of the buyers to whom I have spoken about this issue. We have an issue in that there is over-supply of a product that the markets are not currently demanding and this has driven prices down. It is important that an alternative market such as live cattle exports is found in order that we can address the issue of over-supply. That is what we are trying to do.
3. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his views on whether the provision included in section 6(1) of SI No. 3 of 2014 is fair and proportionate and in compliance with the principle of natural justice; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13995/14]
Section 6(1) of SI No. 3/2014 states that points assigned to a holder of an Irish licence remain assigned regardless of any criminal proceedings pending or the outcome of such proceedings in respect of the serious infringement concerned. Is this provision in compliance with the principles of natural justice and appropriate for inclusion in the regulations?
SI No. 3/2014 gives effect to the requirements of Article 92 of EU Council Regulation 1224/2009 and Commission Implementing Regulation 404/2011. In accordance with the EU regulations, the statutory instrument gives full effect to a points system for the licence holder of a sea-fishing boat. The points system applies where a serious infringement of the Common Fisheries Policy by a fishing vessel - this is applicable to EU and third country vessels - is detected within the exclusive fishery limits of the State or for an Irish vessel wherever it may be.
The statutory instrument was prepared in close co-operation with the Office of the Attorney General. I have full confidence that it is legally sound and consistent with the requirements of the EU regulations, the Irish Constitution and natural justice. The purpose of the EU regulations, as stated in the recital, is to create a level playing field in fisheries control across the EU. All member states have given effect to Article 92 of the Council Regulation in respect of the points system to apply for licence holders.
The points system for licence holders set out in the statutory instrument is not the administration of justice as understood in the criminal sense. It is a separate and parallel administrative system with a lower burden of proof. It is important to note that there will be no immediate sanction for a licence holder following the application of points. Rather, there must be persistent serious infringements leading to an accumulation of a certain number of points before any suspension will occur. The accumulation of points for persistent serious infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy will lead to the suspension of a sea-fishing boat licence for a period from two months to one year. In extreme cases, persistent serious fisheries infringements could lead to the permanent withdrawal of a licence. It should also be noted that provision is made in the statutory instrument for a robust and effective appeals process. Therefore, a licence holder may apply to an independent appeals officer against any proposal to apply points to him or her. I have already appointed an Appeals Officer in accordance with the provisions of the statutory instrument. The statutory instrument also makes provision for appeal on a point of law to the High Court in respect of the decision of an appeals officer.
The Deputy's question is whether points continue to apply following the taking of a legal case which is lost. The answer to that question is "Yes, they do," in the same way that there is a difference between a civil and criminal case in a court of law. It is akin to a person receiving penalty points having been caught driving too fast. However, those concerned may appeal the penalty points to an appeals officer and the High Court.
Thank you, Minister.
The levels of burden of proof in a criminal case versus this particular statutory instrument are different.
I must ask Deputies to adhere to the time allowed.
The Minister is trying to make the case that there is a difference between this penalty points system and criminal proceedings. However, where criminal proceedings are taken and they fail, in law no offence has taken place. If there is a difference, this provision should not form part of the statutory instrument. The Commission regulation and Council regulation are silent on this matter. There is no reference in either of those regulations to any national proceedings affecting the penalty points system. I believe that where legal proceedings are taken and they succeed, thereby indicating that in law no offence has taken place, the penalty points should be revoked. It is another matter as to whether any case taken would be likely to succeed. However, that is a separate issue. In terms of confidence and natural justice, it should be the case that where a case is won the penalty points are not applied.
I put the same question the Deputy is asking of me to the Attorney General and officials in my Department - namely, whether we do could that and remain consistent with the Council regulation. It was made clear to me, under a point of law, that what we are dealing with in this regard is two parallel systems. The Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA, will apply penalty points in respect of breaches of the rules. While in this regard a particularly high burden of proof will not be required, proof will be required before points can apply. Those awarded penalty points will have an opportunity to appeal, which is an entirely separate system from going to court. Where a legal criminal case is taken against a skipper or owner of a boat in respect of infringement of the rules, the burden of proof and punishment is much higher. It is a separate system. We cannot, I am told, in law overlap the two systems. They are different systems in terms of the burden of proof and punishments involved. The penalty points system is aimed at being a deterrent, one that is equal in respect of everybody across the European Union. The two systems need to remain separate.
This section was described recently by the SFPA at a committee meeting as a novel approach. I imagine it is not an approach that is taking place across the remainder of the European Union. It appears that Irish fishermen are again to be treated separately and differently from other fishermen across the European Union in terms of the application of this process.
It is important to note that by the time criminal proceedings conclude the timeframe allowed under the regulations in respect of an appeal will have lapsed. Therefore, the outcome of the criminal proceedings could not be relied upon as a point of appeal in terms of the penalty points. I believe this will be injurious to fishermen in the future.
This will be applied in other countries also. It is not being applied to Ireland and not to other countries. There is a Council regulation that every country is required to implement. Had we not implemented this, there would have been consequences in that the Commission would have taken a case against Ireland. The Commission made very clear that it would do so. It will also take cases against other countries if they do not implement this regulation. This is happening everywhere. It is not only an Irish initiative.
Fishermen should view these two courses of action as entirely different. I believe there will be cases where penalty points are applicable and in respect of which no legal case will be taken. There will equally be cases in respect of which legal cases will be taken and no penalty points will be applicable. There will be some cases that may involve both but there will be two separate enforcement proceedings involved. I am told, with some authority, by the Attorney General's office that the two systems need to be treated separately from one another.
4. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the steps he has taken to date to deal with the current crisis in the beef trade, particularly the bull beef trade; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13992/14]
This is a further question in relation to the collapse of prices in the beef trade, specifically the bull beef trade. I would like the Minister to elaborate further on what immediate actions he has taken to deal with this issue. For example, did he meet the retailers, who I understand he has used as an excuse for our problems in this regard?
Regarding the current difficulties between farmers and processors, the Deputy will appreciate that, ultimately, price and market specification are matters to be determined between purchasers and the sellers of cattle. For obvious reasons it is neither appropriate nor possible for me to intervene directly in setting prices. My Department monitors the kill figures from Irish meat plants and I note that slaughterings of bull beef in the first 11 weeks of 2014, up to 16 March, stood at almost 65,000. That represented an increase of almost 2,000, or 3%, on the figure for the same period last year. In addition, as I outlined, the number of live cattle exported to the end of 9 March was approximately 42,000, up 6% on the figure for last year.
It should be noted that Irish beef prices were 106% of European Union average last year. The average price change in the first ten weeks of this year is a reduction of approximately 1.8%, but it must be remembered that that is a common price that has decreased slightly in the first quarter of the year. Nonetheless, I know and recognise that there is a specific problem in the bull beef sector. Essentially, there is an oversupply of a certain product, which is very much out of spec in terms of what supermarkets are seeking. That is a problem and it has resulted in prices falling well below what farmers would have been expecting to receive for their bull beef.
I have tried to do everything within reason to speak to both the farming organisations and the processing sector. I have ongoing conversations with retailers on a range of issues, including the spec they are seeking. The problem is that if one is producing large animals, bull beef that is 22, 24 and 26 months old, often steaks from these animals are far too big in terms of what retail outlets want. That is the reason retail outlets, particularly those in the United Kingdom, sourcing bull beef are looking for animals aged 16 or 17 months, which in general we are not producing here. We need to learn lessons from this, both at a processing and a farming level, to produce what the market is looking for to make sure we get the maximum price for what we are producing.
First, the Minister is probably familiar with the Derrypatrick project and the understanding of farmers that processors, Teagasc and everybody else involved in the project were encouraging them to produce 18 month old bull beef because it was not economical to produce it at the age of 16 months. Now we suddenly find the same processors will not buy such beef.
They are generally not producing 18 month old beef.
The problem is that the factories want 16 month old bull beef. Does the Minister believe the farmers were badly advised? Second, as the Minister is aware, there is a problem in having cattle slaughtered in the North of Ireland.
Yes.
I understand the Minister believes the problem is related to the specifications of retailers. What discussions has he had with them on this issue?
Thank you, Deputy.
I seek the indulgence of the Chair as I have a third question. I will be brief. There was a live animal exporter with us yesterday and he explained to us that a company that operated ferry sailings from Dublin was refusing to take live cattle from Dublin. However, he has consistently, without difficulty, carried live cattle from Belfast to Britain.
I will let the Deputy in again.
Has the Minister done anything about that matter?
The Deputy has asked three questions. On whether farmers were advised badly, I have never advocated a significant increase in the production of bull beef in Ireland. On all of the trade missions I have undertaken, particularly in the markets in which we sell beef in Europe, including the United Kingdom, people have been telling me since I became Minister that they want marbled beef, steer cattle primarily and heifers as opposed to bull beef. Many farmers made the economic decision to go down the route of producing bull beef because it suited their systems. They might have less land and may want to keep their animals inside for slightly longer. They will feed them more meal than they would otherwise do if they were grazing them using a grass-based system. This suits some farm structures. The problem is that 20% of our beef is now bull beef and the market is indicating that it wants something different. I still believe it is economically viable to produce bull beef, but if a farmer is producing young bull beef using a predominantly grass-based system, it is impossible to produce, as the Deputy states, 16 month old bull beef. Farmers have to make a choice to either intensively produce bull beef, using high protein meal, or to produce it using a grazing system, supplemented with meal. What needs to happen is a conversation between farmers who want to produce bull beef and the factories they will be supplying to ensure everybody is clear on what will be provided. The farmers who have done this have got a good price for their bull beef animals. The problem has been encountered by farmers who have produced animals without a pre-contract agreement with factories. They bring an animal approximately 22 months old to a factory-----
I am sorry, Minister, but we are over time.
-----but there is no market outlet for that animal. Therefore, they are not getting the price that, to be fair, they deserve for what is a good animal. We are trying to resolve that issue. I will come back to the Deputy on the Northern Ireland issue-----
No, the Minister cannot because we are over time. The six minutes are up. I cannot do anything about it if Members insist on going over time.
I kept to the time limit.
I do not care. I have told Deputies that there are six minutes per question.
It is the Minister's way to waffle on-----
I have asked Members to adhere to the Chair's ruling. There are other Deputies whose questions are never reached as a result. We have now spent 37 minutes on four questions. We are proceeding to Question No. 5.
All of the time was not lost-----
There are six minutes per question and if the Deputy wants to use his two minutes in that way, I am sorry, but I cannot do anything about it.
The Minister-----
I am trying to give full answers.
The Minister has to do it within the time allocated. That is what I am trying to get across to him.
I had a one line question-----
This is Question Time; it is not about making statements.
5. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he has applied for help from the European Union solidarity fund to aid Irish fishermen who have not been able to put to sea for months. [13994/14]
Every Member of the House is aware of the terrible weather we have experienced since the middle of December and the effect it has had on fishing communities. Has the Minister sought any funding from the European Union Solidarity Fund to help alleviate the crisis for inshore fishermen whose boats effectively have been tied up since last December?
I acknowledge that we have had a particularly difficult winter for many fishermen around the coast, with the exception of some of those with the very large pelagic boats. However, in the whitefish sector and the case of the inshore fleet it was virtually impossible to fish, particularly in the months of January and February. The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, has previously advised the House that the costs associated with severe weather events in recent months are well below the threshold for the EU Solidarity Fund and that, therefore, no application is possible. We have checked this out and it is the case. Notwithstanding the non-availability of EU funds, the Government has made significant Exchequer funds available to assist the seafood sector in dealing with the impact of the severe weather. On 12 February I informed the House that, as part of its overall co-ordinated response, the Government had decided to make available an additional €8.8 million for the repair of the publicly owned pier, harbour and slipway network for fisheries and aquaculture. In addition, it decided to allocate up to €1.5 million to assist inshore fishermen in replacing lobster and shrimp pots which had been lost or destroyed in the storms.
On 20 March I announced further details of the special funding allocated to local authorities to repair piers and harbours. The funding of €8.5 million will assist to repair 115 storm damaged harbours and piers owned by 11 local authorities and my Department. I also announced details of my Department’s capital programme for 2014, which will see a further €14.6 million provided for harbour development, of which some €11.6 million will go to safety, maintenance and new development works in the six fishery harbours at Howth, Dunmore East, Castletownbere, Dingle, Ros a Mhíl and Killybegs, in addition to fixing the bull nose pier in the north harbour on Cape Clear.
The Deputy will get the rest of that response in detail when he gets it. To help fishermen who have not been able to catch their quota in January and February we have agreed with the industry to significantly increase whitefish quotas for March and April to help fishermen catch up in terms of cashflow problems they would have encountered. We felt that was the most effective way for us to increase their income and ease their cashflow. That has led to problems with pricing in the market in terms of oversupply in recent days, which is also a problem now.
The Minister hit the nail on the head when he mentioned the effect of oversupply on the market regarding the opportunity to make up for lost quota. From the second week in December up to two weeks ago boats were tied up unable to go to sea. As a consequence the boat owners, skippers and crewmembers had no income. As they are deemed to be self-employed they cannot get social welfare. Those who chose to go down that road find themselves waiting weeks if not months for it to be processed.
I have been to Kilmore Quay. We recommended setting up a mechanism allowing them direct access to the social welfare.
I ask the Deputy to put his question, please.
It is a very depressed state. These people have had no income since the end of the second week in December. Funding should be made available to help people during that period and nothing has happened in that regard.
It is not true to say nothing has happened. I have spoken to the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, who has assured me that social welfare offices in and near fishing ports will prioritise fishermen in what is a very difficult period for them. She has assured me that if fishermen can show they have had no income for ten weeks they will get income support. Many fishermen have been getting income support. Some fishermen feel they should not apply on the basis that they are not entitled to it because they are self-employed - the Deputy is right about that. There is a perception problem here for many fishermen - they do not want to be going into social welfare offices but want to be out catching fish. While they are not used to do it, I encourage fishermen to approach social welfare officers in social welfare offices. They will find they will be treated with the compassion they deserve in terms of the income support they need to get them through a difficult period.
The Minister for Social Protection can make all those things available, but there is a process to be followed. A self-employed fisherman or woman applying for social welfare must have his or her accounts in order.
That is not true.
Yes.
The Deputy is right that that is the perception, but-----
I have dealt with it.
----- there is an immediate income-support payment they can and will get.
This is Question Time. The Deputy should put his question and get an answer.
I have dealt with it. They have to produce the accounts for their income for the previous year. They have to get their bank statements to prove what they have or have not got in the bank and it is a long drawn out process. That is why fishermen are not accessing those special needs payments to which they should be entitled.
I thank the Deputy. If he wants a reply I will ask the Minister to be quick.
They might get a few bob from the community welfare officer but they are not getting any social welfare entitlements because they are deemed to be self-employed.
My understanding is that there is an emergency income-support payment available to fishermen.
Through the community welfare officers.
If they have had no income for 12 weeks they can get an emergency income payment immediately from their social welfare office, if they qualify. They should go to their social welfare office to discuss that. The Minister, Deputy Burton, has told me that priority is being given to fishermen and there is considerable sympathy for them given the kind of winter they have been through. I will happily talk to the Deputy about individual cases if he brings them to my attention.
I call Question No. 6.
I have just one supplementary question.
No. You will not have one. We are way over time; I am sorry.
The Minister referred to them having no income for ten weeks. What are they to do for those ten weeks?
