Éamon Ó Cuív
Question:1. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the progress made to date by him in tackling the crisis in the beef industry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26238/14]
Priority Questions
Beef Industry
I am a little disappointed the senior Minister is not here. As the Minister of State knows, this year has been disastrous for beef producers, particularly bull beef producers. This is putting many farmers over the edge. It is not without significance that there have been two demonstrations this week outside the Minister's office, one on Tuesday in regard to the beef crisis and another today by hill farmers. People are losing confidence in him. What is the Minister going to do about the beef crisis, other than talk about it?
I wish to apologise for the absence of the Minister, Deputy Coveney, who is doing important work with Tom Vilsack, US Secretary of Agriculture. What the Minister is doing is trying to gain access for Irish beef to the American market. On Tuesday, we had a Chinese delegation here and the Minister's meeting on Tuesday and today's meeting with Tom Vilsack are significant for the beef sector.
I am acutely aware of the importance of the beef sector and sensitive to the concerns of farmers at this time. The current downward pressure on Irish beef prices is replicated in the UK, which is our main export market, and in other key EU markets. Against the background of the current concerns, the Minister met separately with representatives of the farm organisations, IFA, ICMSA, ICSA, and meat factories in February and March this year. More recently, he invited key stakeholders, including farm organisations, beef processors and relevant State agencies, to a round table discussion on the future development of the beef sector on 17 April and chaired a second meeting on 3 June.
There have already been a number of initiatives in the wake of this forum. These include the beef round table discussions, which will reconvene quarterly to exchange intelligence on market developments and forecasts particularly in regard to supply, demand, prices, product specifications and retail changes. The Minister has committed to launching a beef pricewatch online tool to make price information more accessible and free of charge to farmers. Work has commenced and already, as an initial step, the Department has improved its website in order to make price information more user friendly for farmers. The Department is examining the possibility of legislating for the recognition of producer organisations in the beef sector and will shortly be launching a consultation with key stakeholder groups in this regard. This initiative could provide a vehicle for collective action by farmers in a way that can give them the advantages of scale and market presence, as well as a useful vehicle for transferring technology and expertise to improve profitability at farm level.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The Department will prioritise its targeted on-farm capital investments for suckler farmers through the new rural development programme. In addition, Bord Bia has allocated €500,000 to expand and target promotion of Irish beef through its campaigns in the UK and in certain continental markets.
During the first beef forum, the Minister requested Mr. Michael Dowling, chairman of the beef 2020 activation group, to review the implementation of the group’s report, after intensive consultation with all stakeholders. That report has been delivered, and the Minister has asked round table participants to reflect on its recommendations.
On questions of price, these are matters for the market, and for negotiation between the contracting parties. It was recognised in the Dowling report, however, that there was a need for improvement in communications between processors and farmers on questions of price and market specification. In addition, the report recommended a simple and transparent system of price recognition for animals within market specification, based on the application of the quality payments system, with a bonus to incentivise production to optimal market specification.
Beef farms are the bedrock infrastructure of a critically important Irish industry and while suppliers are subject to the same market realities as others, it is important that their vulnerability to sharp changes in market conditions is recognised, and that the relationship between parties along the beef supply chain is carefully managed by the relevant commercial operators with this in mind. This is critical if supply is to be maintained and the beef sector is to perform to its potential in the future.
The key objective of the beef forum was to provide a vehicle, but not the only vehicle, to facilitate positive engagement between stakeholders in the beef sector, including processors and farmers. At this juncture, I would urge the stakeholders to reflect carefully on the proceedings at the first two meetings of the beef forum, and on the Dowling report, and to take time to engage with each other on its recommendations in order to find mutually satisfactory solutions to the current issues. It is clearly the case that the best interests of the industry will be served by honest engagement, transparency and clear communications, and by a recognition of the legitimate concerns of each of the parties.
As stakeholders are aware, the Minister has already committed to facilitating further engagement between stakeholders on the development of the industry, but it is neither appropriate nor legally possible for me to intervene on the question of price. In the meantime, there has already been a significant commitment by Government to investment in the beef sector through a revised Common Agricultural Policy negotiated during the Irish Presidency of the EU in 2013, including a single farm payment worth €1.2 billion to Irish farmers annually, through the Rural Development Programme 2014-2020, €295 million for beef data and genomics, and, in 2014, through the beef data, genomics and technology adoption programmes which will result in investment of some €40 million in the sector.
I will continue to ensure that the beef sector is a priority in the development of a policy and support framework for agrifood in the period ahead.
On the issue of the Minister not being here today, we had agreed to change the day for parliamentary questions. He must have known he was going to have this meeting. We have all been aware, for the past two weeks, that the US Secretary of Agriculture was coming to Ireland because we received an invitation to a reception this evening. Why, therefore, did the Minister not come into the Dáil and say that today did not suit and swap times with another Minister? We would have co-operated in that regard. No disrespect to the Minister of State, but in the middle of a crisis, the senior Minister should be here.
Since last autumn, I have been highlighting the issue of the beef crisis. Will the Minister of State answer the questions I am about to ask? It would be helpful if he can answer them in the order I ask them. My first question concerns the live trade to Britain. What has been done to remove the barriers to this trade and why is it possible to export cattle from Larne to Scotland, but the same companies will not take cattle from Dublin to Holyhead? Why is it possible to export from one part of the island but not the other? Second, the issue of labelling has become a significant issue in the past year. It is driving down prices, particularly by reducing the demand for cattle from Northern Ireland. Third, I welcome what the Minister of State said about legislation for producer organisations, but will he give me some indication of the timescale for this? Is this going to be a constant promise, once again, of something that might happen when it happens and so on? When are we going to get this legislation? Can the Minister of State give me a date for it?
In regard to the Minister's absence, it is hugely important for the Minister for Agriculture and Food to meet the most important man not only in America, but in the world. We are trying to get access to the US market for our beef. That is where the Minister, Deputy Coveney, is today and it is vital he is there. I am quite capable of answering any of the Deputy's questions. That is the reason we have a Minister of State and I will not shirk my responsibility in that regard.
On the Deputy's specific questions, most of the second question arises in the next question from Deputy Martin Ferris.
Up to this time last year, 120,000 cattle were exported. Today, the number is 146,000. There is a misconception that no live cattle are being exported. I can send the Deputy information about the countries-----
To Great Britain. I have all that. It is in The Irish Farmers Journal.
Why did the Deputy ask the question then? The reality is that live exports are taking place and the Government and Department will do everything they can to facilitate that and encourage the export of more cattle. This is why the Minister is constantly out of the country promoting live exports and Irish beef.
I did not suggest that the Minister should not meet the US Secretary of Agriculture. It is typical of what is happening here where everything is twisted. What I did suggest is that we could have had parliamentary questions on another day. As the Minister of State knows, there is an arrangement to do that and we always accommodate the Government in that regard.
I asked about live exports to Great Britain and why it is not possible to get a lorry-load of cattle on a boat in Dublin when it is possible for the same company to get them on a boat in Northern Ireland to take them to Great Britain.
Could the Minister of State outline what real steps have been taken to resolve the issue of the sale of offal to the Russian market? Is he satisfied that the quality assurance scheme, which was designed to get premium prices for farmers, is not having the opposite effect and that the scheme and the forward movement rule are not being used by processors to discount the prices of cattle and to declare that the cattle are out of spec?
Is it intended to introduce a beef industry regulator? Normally when an industry is dominated by a very small number of private sector players, a regulator ensures that there is fair play. Is it intended to have an inquiry either in this country or to seek an EU inquiry into the operation of the entire beef industry, including retailers, processors and the relationship between them and producers?
In respect of grading, I accept that farmers are very concerned. I presume the Deputy was in Grange yesterday?
The Minister of State was down at the ocean conference.
Thousands of farmers assembled in Grange yesterday where the topic was discussed. Certainly, it is something that will come up at the round table discussions. This is why these discussions were put in place. I know the Minister is extremely concerned about this. We will get that on the agenda to see what can be done in the future. People, particularly producers, want to produce a better type of animal and if they are doing so, they should be paid for that animal. This is something that can be dealt with in the future to the satisfaction of both producers and meat factories.
Beef Industry
Martin Ferris
Question:2. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his plans to remedy the situation whereby the traditional trade in live cattle exports to Northern Ireland has collapsed due to the penalisation of nomadic cattle by retail multiples there, due to the labelling problem which arises from cattle that are born in the Twenty-six Counties being slaughtered in the North; and if he has consulted with the Minister for Agriculture in Northern Ireland regarding the introduction of a North-South Irish brand for beef. [26240/14]
Are there any plans to remedy the situation regarding the traditional trade of sending live cattle from the South to the North? These cattle are known as nomadic cattle and this trade has effectively collapsed. What does the Minister intend to do about it? Has he met the Minister in Northern Ireland, Michelle O'Neill? Have they formulated any plan to help remedy the situation?
As the Deputy is aware, my Department attaches considerable importance to the live export trade and over the years has been very active in facilitating shipments abroad. Live exports serve a dual purpose as a means of satisfying legitimate market demands for live animals and providing alternative market outlets for farmers. I do not accept that the trade in live exports to the UK and Northern Ireland has collapsed. Total live exports to date this year are over 150,000 head, of which 25,000 went to the UK, an increase of some 3,100 head or 14% up on the comparable period in 2013. Out of this figure of 25,000, some 18,400 went to Northern Ireland, which is an increase of 6% on the same period in 2013.
However, the potential to grow the live trade to the UK is constrained by the buying specifications operated by the British retail chains in respect of cattle born in this country and exported live for finishing and processing in that market. The retailers' long-standing policy is to market British and Irish beef separately. This means that beef must be sourced from animals originating in one country, that is, born, reared and slaughtered in the same country. In addition, logistical difficulties arise when a small number of Irish-born animals are slaughtered in a UK meat plant. Under mandatory EU labelling rules, these carcasses have to be deboned in a separate batch, packaged and labelled accordingly, thereby incurring additional costs for the processor.
Bord Bia has repeatedly raised this issue with British retailers over the years but they are unlikely to reverse their marketing policy in the short term. Nevertheless, Bord Bia in its ongoing interactions with British customers will continue to pursue all opportunities to maximise the full potential of the beef and livestock trade with our largest trading partner. In addition, Bord Bia actively supports the development of the live export trade through the provision of market information, developing market access and promotional activity. There is ongoing dialogue with my Northern counterpart, Michelle O'Neill, and I assure the House that every time we meet her, which is quite regularly, this issue is raised and worked on in order to reach a satisfactory conclusion.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
It has been agreed at ministerial level to submit another application to the EU Commission for an all-Ireland protected geographical indication, PGI, for Irish beef. The GI scheme originates from the concept of local regional food rather than national reputation. The unique quality of the produce is derived from the geographical area and therefore it is considered that this would usually imply a local "terroir". An application for Irish beef, Ireland only, was lodged previously under an older version of the GI regulation which allowed for the use of a member state's name only in exceptional circumstances. Following an unfavourable response from the Commission, the application was withdrawn.
The Commission had concerns about different aspects of the application but under the regulation in force at that time, use of a country name was only allowed in exceptional cases and the Commission did not consider that the application met this requirement. While the current regulation does allow for the use of a country name, in practice, this has not been done so far. To obtain a GI for all Irish beef would be very challenging. We would have to demonstrate that the same characteristics country wide in terms of geographical or human factors are the causal link in creating this one unique product.
An obvious issue would be beef from Northern Ireland and how similar or different the geographical or human factors are for this beef. It is possible to have GI registration for a product that crosses different legal jurisdictions but the product has to be the same product produced in the same way and whose uniqueness can be shown to be causally linked to the geographical area. Furthermore, the origin labelling requirements are causing difficulties for a country-wide approach. GI names are protected and other products cannot use their names or imply they are like them. However, under labelling rules, beef must be labelled with the member state of origin. The Commission has concerns that there would be a contradiction between these requirements.
Dialogue and serious dialogue are two different things. I cannot understand why the two Ministers on this island cannot resolve this issue. The people who are most affected by this are the smaller beef producers on the west coast. Traditionally, buyers from the Six Counties bought the cattle and that trade benefited everybody. It does not make sense that the two Ministers cannot resolve this. They need to sit down and resolve it.
This is the second day that there have been protests outside Government Buildings regarding the situation and the Minister. There is a lack of confidence in the Minister on the part of the farming community because he is not addressing the problems. Perhaps his mind is elsewhere but he certainly needs to address the problems and to give his full attention to the issues affecting Irish farmers, including nomadic cattle and bull beef. The people who are affected are those on lower incomes and they need support and leadership. This leadership must be forthcoming from the Government and Minister. I am sorry to say that the Minister is not acting accordingly.
I assure the Deputy that the Minister's door has been open at all times for farming organisations to come in and discuss any issue that concerns them. The Deputy referred to the groups protesting last night. Across the road at 7.30 p.m., the Minister met a group of farmers who were picketing on Tuesday. He is always available. He consistently works long hours trying to help develop Irish agriculture. Due to the fact that difficulties arose with beef in the past few weeks, which we acknowledge, people are now saying that he is doing a bad job. The reality is that he negotiated a deal with the EU that no other Minister would ever be capable of.
I saw him bringing all the countries together at the end of the process — I joined his team only at the end of it — to ensure a deal that would result in significant future benefits for Ireland. I refer to the single payment schemes that he protected so vigilantly on behalf of Irish farmers. Nobody could say that this man is running away from the matter. If anything, and as has been acknowledged by a number of farming organisations and media commentators, he is doing extremely well. Yesterday I walked with the farmers from the west about whom the Deputy spoke, namely the small beef producers. They accept that everything is being done. There is an issue with the beef trade and that is being tackled. It was tackled with the Chinese on Tuesday. It is being tackled today. Next week, the Minister is to visit the United States to deal with it. Therefore, nobody can say he is not doing a good job.
The Minister of State and I are on a different planet. His statement this morning that the Minister has the confidence of the farming community is not correct. Why have there been two protests in this city this week by the farmers most affected, that is, those in the beef sector and hill farmers, the people most in need? At this point, we need leadership. I cannot understand why the Minister is not sitting down with Ms Michelle O'Neill. I took the trouble to meet Ms O'Neill only last week on this issue. Her team is willing to sort this issue regarding the labelling aspect but the initiative must come from here also. It must not be evident only in one area.
With regard to having a good working relationship, I have no doubt that there is commitment on the part of the farming sector to have a good working relationship but it must be reciprocated. Leadership has to come from the Government, including the Minister. Farmers are not happy. The beef producer, in particular, is not happy, nor are those who are trying to negotiate parts of pillar 2. This says a lot about the Minister's commitment at present. I am sorry to disagree with the Minister of State. I am certainly not happy with what is occurring.
The bottom line is that it suits the Opposition to say the Minister is not doing a good job. One should consider the context of what he has achieved, including the price of milk and the fact that dairy products are doing really well right across Europe and elsewhere on the world stage. Beef prices have decreased. I saw at first hand only last week that cattle in the marts around my county are not as dear as they were this time last year. However, prices are higher than they were three years ago. This seems to be a matter of confidence in the Minister. When prices are down in a sector, I have no doubt but that people will seize the opportunity to blame him. That is the traditional approach but people need to be more constructive. They should work out how to open new markets, including the American market, and how to get our really good, top-class grass-fed beef onto the world stage. The Chinese were here some days ago. They were greatly impressed with our environment and the way we produce beef. We need to market that. What we say here is no good if we do not push what we have on the world stage. In global terms, the amount of beef we produce is not huge and would not flood the market but we have a specialised product. I assure everybody that it is a question of building up the markets, and that is what we need to achieve.
High Nature Value Farming
Thomas Pringle
Question:3. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will specifically recognise high nature value farming under the Common Agricultural Policy; if so, the measures he is considering; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26236/14]
This question concerns high nature value farming. Does the Minister intend to recognise this in the Common Agricultural Policy? It is particularly important to the north west, where the most low-impact farming will take place. What measures will be introduced to support it?
High nature value, HNV, farming is farming that supports the objective of having highly diverse species and habitats and maintains bio-diversity in the agricultural landscape. Under the rural development programme, RDP, currently being finalised by my Department, I am proposing to support HNV farming specifically and biodiversity in general through a number of measures.
In the draft programme, I have included plans for a new agri-environmental scheme that will deliver payments to farmers for delivery of environmental goods. This new green, low-carbon, agri-environment scheme, GLAS, will incentivise 50,000 farmers to focus on priorities such as biodiversity, water quality and climate change and will have an annual budget rising to €250 million per year.
Under the scheme, priority access is being given to farmers within Natura areas, which constitute the majority of our HNV farmland. In addition, the scheme will include a number of other biodiversity options that support HNV-appropriate farming. Specific measures such as conserving traditional hay meadows and permanent pastures, supports for establishment and management of hedgerows and the creation of wildflower margins and planting of small woodlands are all included, along with measures directly targeting specific bird species, bees and bats. Conservation plans for privately owned Natura land and commonage will also be supported.
Additionally, payments to farmers in areas of natural constraints provide support for HNV farming while the organic farming scheme will also be available to such farmers.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
A financial provision of €70 million over the RDP period is also being made available for targeted agri-environment initiatives. This innovation will initially target two identified priorities, both of which are HNV focused, an expansion of the Burren farming for conservation scheme and a targeted scheme supporting the conservation of the freshwater pearl mussel in priority catchments.
The Government’s continuing commitment to strategic investment in the agri-food sector and the rural economy is evidenced by the provision of matching funding to bring the total allocation for the new RDP to over €4 billion. This constitutes a very significant commitment to the rural economy.
I plan to submit Ireland’s draft RDP to the European Commission at the end of June. Following this, it is expected that a period of negotiation will take place in the subsequent months.
It is vital that GLAS recognise and be directed towards high nature value farming or farming on marginal farms, basically in the north west. While the scheme will target 50,000 farmers, it will be nationally based. The farmers in the north west need a scheme that is more focused on them and which provides additional funding for them, recognising the difficulty in maintaining farm incomes in their area and the value that accrues for the State in general from preserving the environment and biodiversity. I ask that GLAS be pitched more towards these types of farmers so they can receive the maximum amount of funding. One is talking about a maximum annual payment through GLAS of approximately €5,000, which is similar to the payment under the AEOS. If the matter is dealt with in this blanket way, it will not recognise the value of high nature value farming to the State.
The Deputy and the joint committee were briefed on it. The Deputy's points were well made and they were illustrated at the meeting last night. While no definite decision has been made, I will certainly take those points on board.
Agriculture Scheme Penalties
Éamon Ó Cuív
Question:4. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the response he has given to the EU in view of the threat of a fine being imposed on his Department in relation to the single farm payment; when he expects this matter to be resolved; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26239/14]
Huge fines have already been imposed on farmers under various schemes because of errors that they could not have avoided owing to the fact that the accuracy with which a satellite can measure the ground is far greater than that achievable by a human being based on normal methods. In addition, there is now a threat by Europe to impose a very large fine on the Department. No doubt the Department will, as a consequence of not getting the money from the Exchequer, cut grant aid to farmers from State-funded schemes. When will we get the facts about this case?
The issue of land eligibility is particularly crucial in the context of the various area-based schemes operated by my Department. The Deputy will be fully aware of the value of these EU-funded direct payment schemes to Ireland, with Irish farmers benefiting annually from funding of over €1.5 billion under schemes such as the single farm payment scheme, the disadvantaged areas scheme, the agri-environment schemes etc.
The European Commission has an obligation to ensure that member states manage and use the EU funding granted to them in accordance with the very restrictive provisions governing the schemes and general financial provisions.
Under the Common Agricultural Policy, this is done by way of a clearance of accounts procedure, a formal process in which both the Commission and member states are obliged to adhere to the requirements laid down in the legislation. This is an extremely serious process. During the period 2002 to 2012, the Commission imposed financial corrections amounting to €5 billion on member states. Ireland’s share of the total amounted to €25.6 million or 0.5% of the total amount corrected, which is one of the lowest percentages among member states.
Deputies will be aware of the process, which involves audit missions, follow-up correspondence and formal bilateral meetings between the two parties followed by further correspondence, leading ultimately to the Commission’s letter of findings. This letter, which was recently received, proposes significant correction totalling €181.5 million. This is a 2% flat rate correction over five years on €9 billion in expenditure and significantly ahead of the level that might reasonably have been anticipated.
I thank the Minister.
I need to continue to clarify because-----
These answers are too long, in fairness.
I need to continue because the question-----
There will be an opportunity for the Minister to come back in.
The money allocated for farming has fallen, despite all the boasting by the Minister that goes on in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Let us face the facts. According to a parliamentary reply, the level of direct payments from all schemes to farmers in County Galway decreased by 9% between 2011 and 2013, and that was before the fines. Further cuts are being made this year. This fantastic CAP that the Minister keeps talking about amounts to cut after cut. We were always going to get a CAP. The Minister comes in and says he has got so much so money. Did he think they were going to abolish the CAP altogether? The reality is that, over the next seven years, we will have less money, more schemes and even less money, more bureaucracy and red tape, more inspections and more penalties. On top of all this, the Minister is now saying that we are likely to have €160 million taken out of State funding for agriculture.
Those comments show why I wanted to finish my answer. I wish to state clearly that I regard the proposed disallowance as being wholly disproportionate to the level of actual risk to EU funds identified following recent audits. The Deputy should note that Ireland has the right, and fully intends to avail of it, to ask for the matter to be reviewed by the EU conciliation body. This body will review the case and seek written and oral observations from each party. I can confirm that a comprehensive, robust response is being prepared and will be delivered before the end of this month. Before the end of the year, that body will make its recommendations, which the Commission will consider before arriving at its final, definitive decision. It is also open to member states to initiate legal proceedings in the European Court of Justice in relation to any such clearance decision. I assure the Deputy that we will fight this tooth and nail and leave no stone unturned, because we have been compliant at all levels. The Department will make sure that people will not be overcharged.
It is interesting that the Minister of State said that total disallowances from 2002 to 2012 were €25 million, yet now, suddenly, three years into this Government, we are threatened with a fine of €181 million, which I presume the Government is going to fight. Who makes the rules under which we are being fined? The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine had an opportunity during Ireland's Presidency of the Council last year to look at these rules and to change them if he had found them disproportionate, which he now seems to be indicating they are. Why did he not change the rules when he had the opportunity and try to avoid this fine? The retrospective penalties that have been imposed on farmers in the past year have been totally unreasonable. It is claimed that most farmers got it right, but the percentage of farmers who got it wrong was, on the Minister's own admission, enormous. Why did they get it wrong? It is because, particularly with smallholdings, it is virtually impossible to get it right unless one owns a satellite.
I want to clarify and assure the Deputy that we will fight tooth and nail. The Deputy need not be under any illusion about that. We will make sure that no stone is left unturned in trying to achieve the best result for Irish farmers. We should all unite in trying to do the best job for farmers rather than try to be divided. Nobody wants to see a country such as Ireland, which has done its work properly in relation to all the schemes, penalised. We have been huge beneficiaries of the schemes, but this fine has come out of the blue. That is why we will do whatever we can, even if it takes going to the courts, to get what is rightfully ours. We will leave no stone unturned.
Fishing Communities
Thomas Pringle
Question:5. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will include a provision in the operational programme of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund to provide for compensation for fishermen affected by storms; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26237/14]
This question arises from the storms that devastated the country in the early part of this year and badly affected inshore fishermen. For at least three months, they were unable to go to sea. The question relates to the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and to what provision can be included in the operational programme to allow the state to compensate those fisherman with the assistance of European funding. What are the Minister's intentions in that regard?
The EU regulation establishing the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund was published on 20 May 2014. Following months of intense lobbying and negotiation, the Minister announced on 12 June 2014 that he had secured €148 million from the new fund for the period 2014 to 2020 for the development of the Irish seafood industry and the coastal communities that depend on it. This funding is more than double the amount that was available to Ireland during the last Common Fisheries Policy. It will ensure a strong seafood industry in Ireland that can grow and expand to meet its potential up to 2020. Ireland’s EMFF allocation is to be provided through five discrete funding envelopes, namely €71 million for investment in the seafood industry, €32 million for data collection, €37 million for control and enforcement, €5 million for implementation of the Integrated Maritime Policy, and €1.3 million for storage aid. I will be discussing with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform in the near future Exchequer matching funding, having regard to the general budgetary situation for the coming years.
The EMFF will provide support for our fishing fleet to meet the challenges of the new discards ban. It will 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. Further public consultation and strategic environmental assessment will take place over the summer of 2014. The new operational programme must be submitted to the European Commission for adoption before the end of 2014.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
Article 35 of the EMFF regulation provides for a contribution from the operational programme to a mutual fund established by fishermen or their representatives. Such a mutual fund may pay financial compensation to affiliated fishermen for economic losses caused by adverse climatic events or environmental incidents or for the rescue costs for fishermen or fishing vessels in case of accidents at sea during their fishing activities. I am minded to make provision in the operational programme for such a mutual fund contribution. This is subject to final decisions on overall priorities for the seafood sector and to ex ante evaluation by independent consultants of the appropriateness of such a measure. In addition, the contribution will be subject to matching funds being provided by fishermen, as required by the regulation.
That is a nice overview of the press release from the Department last week at the conclusion of the negotiations, but it did not address any of the specific points in the question. The Oireachtas joint committee has written to the Minister asking that such provision be included in the operational programme.
Will any consideration be given to supporting fishermen through the operational programme of the fisheries fund?
It is interesting to note that of the €147 million referred to, approximately €72 million will be spent on data collection and enforcement. In reality, then, it is only around €70 million that will go towards investment in the growth of the seafood sector. Will the Minister include in the operational programme supports for fishermen who were affected by the storms which plagued this country and which could be repeated in the future?
I will have further discussions on that issue. I would remind the Deputy that €8 million has already been spent on storm-damaged piers and harbours throughout the country. Obviously in the tight budgetary situation in which the country finds itself, finding money for the Deputy's specific proposals will be difficult. I cannot give the Deputy a definitive answer today but I will revert to him on it in due course.
We found money last year when farmers were in crisis because of the fodder shortage. Money was no object in terms of dealing with that situation. It was very interesting to note that when the Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine discussed the crisis that fishermen are going through because of the recent storms, the committee room was empty. On the other hand, when the committee discussed the fodder crisis last year, one could hardly get into the room with the amount of members of the media and farming organisations there, not to mention Deputies who wanted to be seen to be supporting the farmers.
The €8 million that was allocated for repairing piers and harbours will not improve the livelihood of any of the fishermen who were affected by the recent storms and who will be affected by them again in the future. I am sad to say that I do not hold out much hope that the Minister will include any provisions in the operational programme to support fishermen. The Minister of State spoke about the financial constraints under which the country is operating but European money is available. EU money is available to support fishermen, albeit with the requirement for matching funding. Supporting fishermen with such funding would cost a lot less than if the Government was to provide funding on its own.
I am sure that if European funding is available, officials in the Department will seek it.
That has not been the case in the past.
I can reassure Deputy Pringle on that point. The Deputy made the case that money was made available to farmers last year. At that time, animals throughout the country were in a very serious state. Indeed, in particular areas, there was no hay available and animals were starving. Farmers were facilitated by the importation of fodder from England and parts of France and its distribution around the country. That was a success story and why would people not welcome it? There was huge concern in April and May last year because animals were starving because of the lack of fodder.
On the issue of fishermen, I will talk to officials in the Department to ascertain whether funding is available from Europe for which we can apply. If there is any other way we can help fishermen, we will do so.