Vol. 844 No. 3
6. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the progress made to date by Bord Bia with the milk quality assurance scheme; the number of quality assurance officers it has funded to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26116/14]
My question refers to the milk quality assurance scheme for the dairy industry. I would like the Minister of State to outline how that is working, the progress made to date and whether he is satisfied with the scheme.
In 2012, the Minister announced a proposal for a new national sustainability programme for the dairy sector. This programme is a key element of Ireland’s strategy for marketing and promotion of dairy products on international markets, particularly in the context of expanded milk output following the abolition of milk quotas in April 2015.
It is evident from the engagement with potential customers for Irish food products and potential investors in the Irish agrifood sector that the sustainability message has a strong resonance with both. This programme is independently verified and establishes a point of differentiation that sets our dairy products apart in world markets. The newly developed carbon footprint element is key to demonstrating the strong climate change credentials of Ireland’s dairy sector, and indeed it has already been established that Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector are the joint lowest in the EU.
Dairy farmers join the sustainable dairy assurance scheme by applying through their milk purchaser. Each milk purchaser has staff trained in the operation of the scheme who can advise dairy farmers on how to prepare for application and correct any deficiencies in their operations. Once the farmer is satisfied that the operation is at the standard required by the scheme, the milk purchaser submits an application to Bord Bia through an integrated database system. Applications are then selected by Bord Bia for auditing, and following the correction of any non-compliance issues, entry to the scheme is granted. All major non-compliance issues, such as failure to have water quality tested, must be corrected before entry to the scheme is approved. Minor non-compliance issues do not prevent entry but must be corrected in time for the next audit visit. To date almost 3,500 milk producers have applied to their milk purchasers to join.
In my question I sought information on the number of quality assurance officers who have been funded by Bord Bia to date. I am somewhat surprised that this element of the question was not answered.
I understand that in some cases when inspectors visit and find non-compliance issues, the farmer corrects that non-compliance issue but there is a massive delay in scheduling a second inspection to ensure all issues have been fully addressed. That delay keeps the farmer out of the scheme. I ask that the Department ensures that where there is non-compliance but the issue is dealt with by the farmer, arrangements can be made to carry out a further inspection to ensure compliance without undue delay so that farmers do not miss out.
As I said already, 3,500 milk producers have applied for the scheme. Milk purchasers have sent 1,020 applications to Bord Bia for auditing. Of these, almost 400 have become fully certified members of the scheme, while the remaining 620 are moving through the audit or review process ahead of the final certification decision. Approximately 11,000 information packs have issued to milk purchasers for use by milk suppliers when applying to join the scheme.
An initial panel of 36 people trained to conduct audits for the scheme are now being augmented by an additional 12 people who have been identified as suitable candidates for training. These additional auditors will be added to the panel in the coming months which should improve the situation to which the Deputy referred.
It has been brought to my attention that many of the people being appointed to the panels are retired or former State employees. I would have thought that with a scheme like this which is being funded by the State through Bord Bia, the Minister would have ensured young graduates or other suitably qualified unemployed people would be given priority for this work. Can the Minister of State assure me that an instruction will be given that this State money will be focused on employing people who are not in receipt of pensions and who do not have work at the moment?
In general it is Government policy to employ graduates, if available, for positions such as these and training is provided on the operation of the scheme.
I will certainly raise the matter with Bord Bia if it is the major problem the Deputy says it is, but, historically, the case in this country has been as set out. Deputy Ó Cuív was in the Department and will have known the position.
It is a long time since I was in the Department. I was there for a year in 2001.
He was there. It built up over a number of years and, as the Deputy knows, it takes time to change. I will certainly lend my weight behind young people getting those jobs. I hope that will satisfy the Deputy.
7. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his views on data management and transparency within the beef industry, specifically the beef factories' access to the AIMS database and farm financial data, while farmers are not given access to the figures, collected by his Department, for the number of cattle slaughtered weekly or the level of inter-trading between meat factories; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26140/14]
I would like to hear the Minister's views on beef factories' access to the database of the animal identification and movement system, or AIMS, and to farm financial data while no access has been provided to farming organisations or farmers themselves regarding the number of cattle slaughtered weekly and the level of inter-trading between meat factories.
There are a number of sources of information on the beef industry that are publically available, including information on animal births, prices, slaughter figures, carcass classification and farm income. Some of this information comes from my Department and other information from other State agencies. With regard to transparency, all information is collected, transmitted and published in accordance with the law and, where necessary, the agreement of the respective farmers and companies concerned.
One of the main aims in convening the recent beef roundtable discussions has been to increase transparency around the beef sector. In this regard, my Department has already made a number of improvements to its website in order to make price information more user friendly for farmers. This is a key step along the road to developing a beef pricewatch app for mobile phones and tablets. The Dowling report presented at the most recent roundtable also calls on processors to ensure that communication with farmers on any changes to market specifications takes account of the normal production cycle. In addition, I am making arrangements to ensure that Teagasc, Bord Bia and the ICBF engage to ensure that advice, education and breeding policy remains consistent with evolving market realities.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
My Department collects the prices paid for domestic cattle on a weekly basis and reports this data to the European Commission in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1249/2008 on the classification of beef, pig and sheep carcasses and the reporting of price and Commission Regulation (EU) No. 148/2014 - amendment to categories and classes for recording of market prices in the beef sector and as regards market price for pig carcasses. This information, together with that of other member states in the European Union, is published on the website of the European Commission's Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development.
My Department also publishes beef price information and two reports which are published weekly under the beef pricewatch banner. The first sets out average deadweight prices for cattle, which breaks down by Department-approved factory the average price paid per kilo for steers, cows, heifers and young bulls. This data should be helpful for farmers in ascertaining where they can achieve the best prices. The second report is the meat market report which deals with deadweight and liveweight prices as well as live trade details. The report is reproduced by Bord Bia and made available on its website. While my Department receives weekly kill reports from Department-approved factories, such information is not published as it is commercially sensitive material which cannot be published without the agreement of the factories. Any change to this procedure would have to be discussed with all relevant parties.
In relation to the animal identification and movement system, or AIMS, factory staff notify the movement of animals coming to a slaughter plant to AIMS predominantly by way of a web service application. A small number of factories use an online system or paper system. The factory staff who interact over web services and online only have tag-inquiry access to AIM - to get the tag number of the animal being presented for slaughter - and to a customer search facility to get names and addresses of keepers or herd numbers. Factory staff do not have access to herd profile details on AIMS. My Department publishes an AIMS annual report every year and this is available on the website also.
My Department does not collect farm financial data. However, the Central Statistics Office's agricultural output, input and income report estimates aggregate farm income for Irish agriculture as a whole. This information is published in multiple forms. Teagasc produces a national farm survey which estimates average farm income by farm system - beef, dairy, tillage, etc. - and size, based on a survey of representative farms. The most recent iteration of this survey covers 2013 incomes and was published two weeks ago.
Under Council Regulation 1290/2005, my Department is required to publish on its website certain payment details made to beneficiaries of schemes funded or co-funded by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund, EAGF, or the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, EAFRD. The information is published exclusively for the purpose of complying with the terms of EU legislation and is not intended for any other purpose.
My Department does not receive or collect any information on inter-trading between meat factories as this is a purely commercial activity carried out between factories and I have no legislative basis or powers to request this data.
The joint committee met representatives of the beef processors last year. What is evident from that engagement and from the current roundtable circus is that the contribution from representatives from beef factories has been clouded and evasive to say the least. What is the situation regarding slaughtered cattle? Will we receive as part of the new transparency which we have yet to see a weekly report on the number of cattle slaughtered and on inter-trading between the meat factories?
My Department publishes beef price information and two reports which are published weekly under the beef pricewatch banner. The first sets out average deadweight prices for cattle, which breaks down by Department-approved factory the average price paid per kilo for steers, cows, heifers and young bulls. This data should be helpful for farmers in ascertaining where they can achieve the best prices. The second report is the meat market report which deals with deadweight and liveweight prices as well as live trade details. The report is reproduced by Bord Bia and made available on its website. While my Department receives weekly kill reports from Department-approved factories, such information is not published as it is commercially sensitive material which cannot be published without the agreement of the factories. Any change to this procedure would have to be discussed with all relevant parties.
That is the crux of the problem; the number of cattle being slaughtered weekly by individual factories and inter-trading between them. Deputy Ó Cuív referred to a beef regulator earlier to address this issue. Something must be done to ensure transparency and to give equal opportunity to producers - the farmers who produce the cattle - to know the statistics that are out there. If farmers do not have the statistics, it makes things easy for beef factories. I and many other people believe the factories have access to data which allows them to know how many cattle are coming on the market at any one time. That allows them to manipulate cattle prices for their own financial benefit.
To clarify, in relation to the animal identification and movement system, or AIMS, factory staff notify the movement of animals coming to a slaughter plant to AIMS predominantly by way of a web service application. A small number of factories use an online system or paper system. The factory staff who interact over web services and online only have tag-enquiry access to AIMS - to get the tag number of the animal being presented for slaughter - and to a customer search facility to get names and addresses of keepers or herd numbers. It is important to note that factory staff do not have access to herd profile details on AIMS. My Department publishes an AIMS annual report every year and this is available on the website also.
Many people have a different view on that.
These are the facts. They do not have access.
It stretches credibility to say they do not have access.
These are the facts.
8. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will put in place measures to support the aquaculture sector in the event of a prolonged natural biotoxin outbreak to assist growers to survive; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26127/14]
My question relates to biotoxin outbreaks affecting aquaculture operations around the coast. A number of areas are prone to biotoxin outbreaks which means shellfish cannot be harvested and must be kept in the water for a lengthy period until the biotoxin dissipates and test results show they are clear. This places a serious financial burden on the operations. My questions seeks to know if there will be any support from the State for them.
The EU regulation establishing the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, or EMFF, was published on 20 May 2014. Following months of intense lobbying and negotiation, I announced on 12 June 2014 that I had secured €148 million from the fund for the period 2014 to 2020 for the development of the Irish seafood industry and the coastal communities that depend upon it. This funding is more than double the amount that was available to Ireland during the last Common Fisheries Policy and will ensure a strong seafood industry in Ireland which can grow and expand to meet its potential up to 2020.
Ireland's EMFF allocation is to be provided through five discrete funding envelopes. There will be €71 million for investment in the seafood industry; €32 million for data collection-----
We already had that information in reply to Question No. 5.
I need to give it on the specific question. I will soon discuss with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform Exchequer the question of matching funding.
EMFF funding will provide support for our fishing fleet to meet the challenges of the new discards ban. It will also support the development of the seafood processing sector, a sustainable aquaculture industry and the communities that depend on a vibrant seafood industry. My Department has been working since 2013 on developing a new operational programme setting out the arrangements for spending Ireland's allocation under the fund and has engaged with stakeholders on a number of occasions to date.
Article 55 of the EMFF regulation provides member states with the option of providing compensation from operational programmes to mollusc farmers for the temporary suspension of harvesting of farmed molluscs due to outbreaks of toxin-producing plankton or the presence of plankton containing biotoxins. A relevant outbreak must last for more than four consecutive months or, alternatively, the loss resulting from the suspension of the harvest must amount to more than 25% of the annual turnover of the business concerned. At this time, I am minded to make provision in the operational programme for such a biotoxin compensation fund.
This is subject to final decisions on overall priorities for the seafood sector and to evaluations by independent consultants of the appropriateness of such a measure.
The last ten seconds of the Minister of State's script actually dealt with the question and I welcome its inclusion in the operational programme. Perhaps a lot of time could be saved if the first minute and a half of the response did not comprise another rehash of the Department's press release. I acknowledge this is not the fault of the Minister of State, who is provided with a script. Nevertheless, the details and information are there and I welcome that. It is something that should happen because it is important for sustaining the shellfish sector in particular. I look forward to seeing a programme being put in place as part of the operational programme and to ascertaining how that will work.
9. Deputy Patrick O'Donovan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will provide details of the engagement his Department has had with the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht on the development of a scheme to adequately compensate farmers and landowners whose lands have been designated for the protection of the habitat of the hen harrier; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23712/14]
This question relates to difficulties, of which the Minister of State is acutely aware, being experienced by farmers and landowners in certain parts of the country for a number of years. They arise in respect of the protection of habitat for certain birds and in particular the hen harrier, which is a bird being protected under the European Union directive in east and west County Limerick, as well as elsewhere in the country. Essentially, I am asking what has been the level of interaction between the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine with the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, with a view to trying to resolve the issue landowners are having.
The hen harrier is a species of high conservation value listed in Annex I of the EU birds directive, which provides a legislative framework for the conservation of the species. Six special protection areas, SPAs, have been designated under the birds directive for the protection of the species in Ireland.
Due to concerns raised by the European Commission regarding SPA management and within the context of ongoing concern regarding the species itself, the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht has initiated the development of a threat response plan, TRP, under section 39 of SI 477 of 2011. The Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht will carry out public consultation regarding this plan, which will set out measures necessary to preserve, maintain or re-establish a sufficient diversity and area of habitat for the species. It is intended that this plan will bring predictability and clarity to landowners about the future management of these sites.
An incentivising scheme known as the National Parks and Wildlife Service farm plan scheme was made available to landowners in certain SPAs to undertake measures above and beyond what is required in terms of compliance with legislation. This scheme is closed to new applicants and I understand the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht has no plans to continue this scheme.
As for payments to farmers whose lands are in SPAs, the new green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, will provide for payments to farmers who undertake specific actions on their land to protect endangered bird species, including the hen harrier. Farmers whose land falls within the hen harrier SPAs will be able to apply for priority access to the new scheme when it opens. GLAS will provide for payments of up to €5,000 per annum to farmers who join the scheme.
The Minister, Deputy Deenihan, and I are well aware of the issues the Deputy has raised today that are faced by landowners in these areas, including issues relating to land values and afforestation approvals. There have been ongoing discussions between my Department and the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht regarding the hen harriers. Last week, I met the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, on this issue again. I am familiar with the area Deputy O'Donovan represents, he has brought this matter to my attention several times and I believe the following point is of importance to him. Last week, we agreed that at the earliest possible date after the summer, which is next September, and following sufficient progress on the development of the threat response plan, the two Departments will seek the Commission’s agreement to an interim approach to afforestation. If agreement can be reached, this would allow for a limited amount of afforestation approvals in this areas, which would be of major advantage to the people concerned in the relevant areas.
I welcome the suggestion in respect of afforestation because much of the land in question - the Minister of State is familiar with the quality of the land to which I refer - is suitable for very little other than afforestation. Moreover, given the habitat in which the bird apparently wishes to reside, it has picked what probably is some of the most disadvantaged land in which to have its habitat. In itself, this has had a double complicating factor because if, for arguments sake, one must cut rushes to draw down a single farm payment from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine but at the same time the National Parks and Wildlife Service states one cannot cut rushes because of the hen harrier's habitat, one has a cross-compliance issue straight away. These farmers are caught between the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the wind energy sector and the Forest Service. They are stuck in limbo at present and while I acknowledge that a threat response plan is being developed, there has been a succession of public meetings on this issue. Both landowners and farmers seek a working group that encompasses the farming representatives, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht as well as all the other vested interests.
Thank you Deputy.
There is no scientific evidence that any threat on its own, be it wind, forestry or intensive farming, has anything to do with the depletion of numbers of this bird. Even after all the schemes that have been initiated over many years, the numbers of pairs of these birds that are breeding are dropping anyway.
Thank you. I will come back to the Deputy.
I will finish by noting this is an issue of huge importance in my part of the country, as the Minister of State is aware.
Thank you.
I ask that both Departments would sit down together with the relevant stakeholders in this regard.
I assure Deputy O'Donovan of one thing, which is I acknowledge there is a problem. I visited the Deputy's constituency myself in the company of officials from my Department and we saw at first hand specific cases of difficulty involving people who sought to plant their land. The problem is that the blanket ban is ruining it. Last week's meeting went a long way towards resolving this problem and the proposal is to come up with an arrangement by next September that we can bring to Europe. If we are given time between now and September, we should have a plan in place to bring to Europe, where we can explain to the officials there that the overall blanket ban should be lifted, that this should apply only to the designated areas in which the hen harrier actually is in place and one should be able to plant in areas other than that specific area.
I thank the Minister of State.
As for afforestation, the number of acres available for forestry planting must be increased and this would go a long way towards that. I assure the Deputy that-----
I thank the Minister of State but we are over time and Deputy O'Donovan must ask a question.
I will be brief. I will ask again about the Minister of State's Department, the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, the farming organisations and the wind energy people because a great deal of this land is suitable for very little other than afforestation, wind and things like that. This issue is not restricted to County Limerick but occurs across the country. My greatest concern is there has been a depletion in the numbers of breeding pairs of this bird over years and the reason is not known. Moreover, we probably never will know why because the scientific evidence is a bit woolly, to be honest about it. My worry is there may be a request from the National Parks and Wildlife Service to extend these areas out even further into west County Limerick and to bring in even more land without a proper regime or structure. That is why I now ask, in the context of a threat response plan for the habitat of this bird, that the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht come together, acknowledge there is a problem, meet the landowners, discuss with them what can be done and come up with a plan that reflects the needs of the bird and its habitat but which also respects the needs of the habitat of the people who live on this land.
A final reply from the Minister of State.
First, I have no problem in meeting any of the landowners and my door is open in that regard. We had a meeting last week but the difficulty is the threat response plan is taking so long to be developed. While we were given a commitment that it would be ready by about now, it is not ready because of other issues around it. As we cannot pull it from the sky, it is to be hoped that the threat response plan will be available within 12 months. In the meantime, however, I assure the Deputy that I will meet anyone to discuss this issue and will have further meetings if so doing helps to resolve the problem. I am quite open to dealing with the office of the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, and with his officials to try to resolve this issue. I assure the Deputy and the people in general in this regard. I acknowledge there are many worried farmers, as Deputy Ferris also is aware, and it is a matter of huge concern. We want to work together and to work with these people and I give the Deputy an assurance that my door is open to discuss matters.
I fully concur with Deputy O'Donovan. I met with farmers in the area. There is another problem. I refer to people who entered into the contract, albeit a little late because of the procedure and so forth, and they have not received one cent. There are hundreds of such farmers. Their land is effectively sterilised and they are getting no income from it. In the boundary area of parts of north-west Cork and into west Limerick, there is forestry on one side of the road and half a mile down the road there is forestry while in between the land is sterilised. It makes no sense whatsoever. There needs to be a complete reappraisal of this situation. I concur with the need for a working group to try to resolve the situation. In the meantime, people have had no income for many years and effectively their land has been sterilised. I ask the Minister of State to give it his immediate attention.
I agree with the Deputy. I would be the first to acknowledge that there is a problem and we have to deal with it. I have stated to Deputy O'Donovan that my door is open to assist in any efforts to resolve this problem. Forestry is under my remit. I want to increase the acreage to be planted as stated in the programme for Government. Two weeks ago, I attended a major forestry conference at Enfield, County Meath and I committed to that project. I am resolved to try to increase the number of acres of forestry to be planted each year because it provides jobs in rural areas. When I was in Deputy O'Donovan's area last week, I saw land that was perfect for forestry but it could not be touched. I want to resolve that situation. However, at all times we must protect the hen harrier as directed by EU regulation but the blanket ban has created a fierce problem for the specific farmers who have not been paid. I will keep that in mind.
10. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine in view of higher demand for Teagasc level 5 and level 6 courses, due to the need for them to qualify for the young farmer top-up payments from next year, if he will act to set aside the embargo on public sector recruitment and provide Teagasc with the staff it needs to fulfil the new demand for places. [26144/14]
My question relates to the Harvest 2020 and the new payments for young farmers and the consequent demand for Teagasc courses. I ask the Minister of State if he will consider increasing Teagasc staff numbers to allow young farmers to meet the requirements for top-up payments.
Teagasc has statutory responsibility for the provision of education, research and advisory services to the agricultural sector. Programmes and activities are developed in conjunction with clients and partners overseen by an authority that is representative of the main stakeholder groups in the agrifood sector. Teagasc employs over 1,100 staff in 50 locations throughout the country.
The education function works in partnership with many other education stakeholders, including universities, institutes of technology and others, to deliver quality-driven education courses in agriculture, food, horticulture, forestry and equine studies. It is a matter for Teagasc to prioritise activities in the delivery of education services and to allocate resources in accordance with these priorities. The question of providing Teagasc with additional resources into the future must have regard to the ongoing moratorium on recruitment which requires all public service organisations to do more with less in order to reduce the public service pay bill.
My Department has responded positively to the demand that has arisen for additional college places in recent years, sanctioning a number of exceptional appointments in the agricultural colleges. Teagasc was granted sanction in 2011 to recruit six contract teachers to cope with staff shortages and increased course applications. A further six teaching posts were approved in 2012 to cover short-term absences in the colleges. More recently, my Department, in consultation with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, approved 11 new posts in Teagasc, including three posts in the education function. Teagasc has also been approved to fill some critical gaps in the education function by way of internal promotions.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
At the same time, Teagasc introduced a number of complementary initiatives to maximise student participation, including increased student-teacher ratios, redeployment of advisory staff to the agricultural colleges and subcontracting the delivery of specific education modules across a number of colleges and local centres.
Under the new direct payment regime which takes effect in 2015, Ireland will implement the young farmers scheme and will establish a national reserve. A person who qualifies as a young farmer will have automatic access both to the young farmers scheme and to the national reserve. To qualify as a young farmer, a person must satisfy a number of conditions, including that he or she has successfully completed a recognised course of education in agriculture giving rise to an award at FETAC level 6 or its equivalent.
Teagasc reports that demand for full-time courses in the agricultural colleges is similar to 2013 levels, which suggests that the new direct payments regime is not impacting on post-leaving certificate applications for full-time education. Teagasc reports an increase in expressions of interest for part-time and distance education courses arising from the measures agreed in the young farmers scheme and the national reserve to prioritise support to young farmers. The actual number of applications that may materialise is unknown at this juncture. Historically, there has been some leakage between expressions of interest and acceptance of offers in respect of part-time and distance education courses.
Teagasc is committed to a significant intake of 500 new learners on part-time and distance education level 6 courses this autumn, based on existing resources levels. I understand that Teagasc plans to open the application process shortly in order to measure the number of applicants who may wish to start a course in the autumn. The demand for courses will be clearer once this process is complete. Officials from my Department are working closely with Teagasc to explore all available options on how best to manage any additional demand that may arise from the national reserve and young farmers scheme.
I welcome that the Minister of State has approved extra staff for Teagasc. It is important that young farmers qualify for top-up payments because their contribution to the general economy is so essential. I hope the Minister of State will bear in mind that despite the fact of the moratorium on recruitment, these schemes for young farmers will be of economic benefit to the country. I ask that extra staff should be provided if necessary.
I met with the Teagasc board recently and that issue was raised. I will look favourably on it in the future. Teagasc is doing an exceptionally good job and agricultural education is vital. The demand for more knowledge and new skills to develop farming businesses was evident at Grange yesterday. The food industry faces a significant challenge and we must keep in mind the projections under Harvest 2020. There are great employment possibilities but central to all this is the education of farmers and this is Teagasc's role. I agree with Deputy Ferris's sentiments. I have given a commitment to the board of Teagasc that we will not stand in the way of that education in order to help the people who are participating in the industry which is growing apace.
