As Deputy Ó Cuív is not present, Priority Question No. 2 cannot be taken at this point. I call Deputy Ferris to introduce Priority Question No. 3.
Priority Questions
Agriculture Scheme Eligibility
Martin Ferris
Question:3. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will ensure that those working commonage will not be disadvantaged if 50% of shareholders do not take up the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS. [35428/14]
The question is to ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will ensure that those working commonage will not be disadvantaged if 50% of shareholders do not take up the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, and those who work commonages and apply for the scheme will be successful.
I thank the Deputy for the question. This is an issue of concern to many hill farmers. The preservation and restoration of commonages, and the continuation of suitable and environmentally friendly farming practices on the hills, is a core element of GLAS and part of Ireland’s overall plan for halting biodiversity loss. In recognition of the importance of commonages, hill farmers will get priority access to GLAS but it is accepted by all that the most effective management of those hills is achieved when those who are actively farming it work together. That is why the creation of a commonage management plan that encourages the shareholders themselves to take control of the grazing of their commonage is the model we have chosen for GLAS. In addition, in order to qualify for an agri-environment payment, the actions undertaken by farmers must be above the baseline for the basic payment scheme, and it is the actions in the commonage management plan which demonstrate that. The only requirement for commonage farmers joining GLAS is for 50% of active farmers to sign up to a GLAS commonage plan or sufficient farmers to bring in at least 50% of the land into the commonage plan. There is no imposition of minimum or maximum stocking densities, and smaller commonages of less than 10 ha in size will not be subject to any minimum participation requirement. On commonages of that size, farmers can enter GLAS in their own right.
I do not believe that a minimum participation requirement based on this model is insurmountable and there are ways in which the application process can be structured that might assist.
However, where real difficulties are being encountered, the farmers concerned can make a case to the commonage implementation committee for entry to the scheme. If it is clear that the farmer or farmers have made every effort to meet the requirement but have failed through no fault of their own, they will not be locked out of GLAS.
The Minister said that if a farmer puts his or her case to the commonage implementation committee, he or she may receive the relevant entitlements through that scheme. I understand that the level of take-up was less than 50% on the land, among active farmers and relating to commonage.
We have had many discussions with farmers concerned about this and certain issues have been raised. Farmers told me they cannot all work with the same planner because they have different planners and would like to be able to apply using their own planners. That is acceptable as long as they comply with a commonage GLAS plan implemented by a planner. If other planners are involved, that is fine as long as they ensure farmers farm in a manner consistent with the GLAS plan.
Ultimately, the aim of this is to ensure the commonage is farmed in a manner consistent with the GLAS plan. Farmers can buy in to this as they wish and use whatever advisers and planners they wish. However, it may be the case that one farmer wishes to sign up to GLAS but does not qualify because other farmers on the commonage do not wish to do so. That farmer can consult the commonage implementation committee and it will be proactive in trying to bring in sufficient numbers to ensure a credible solution to the problem. A commonage implies collective farming so the committee will insist that at least half the commonage is consistent with the commonage GLAS plan. Otherwise it would have no credibility.
In my view, the implementation group will provide practical responses to ensure people who wish to join GLAS can do so. Most of the farmers who had concerns are reasonably happy with the compromise.
Green Low-carbon Agri-environment Scheme
Tom Fleming
Question:4. Deputy Tom Fleming asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will ensure that no commonage farmer will be excluded from access to GLAS by the 50% threshold; that all commonage land will qualify for the €120 per hectare payment; if he will ensure that GLAS is open for application at an early date to ensure that farmers are eligible for a full year's payment in 2015; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35261/14]
There is much concern and disquiet relating to the commonage aspect of the GLAS scheme. When commonage is owned by shareholders, each of whom has mapped and registered holdings, but boundaries are not fenced, it is known as unenclosed privately owned land. The proposed GLAS payment for nature sites and such land is €75 per hectare rather than €120, which applies to commonage land in public ownership. There is an anomaly and I ask the Minister to address the matter to ensure the maximum payment applies to everyone concerned.
I fixed the rate of payment at €120 per hectare and this is a major increase on what was payable under the previous programme - €75 per hectare. There is an overall ceiling of €5,000 per annum under GLAS so the rate proposed is payable to that point. When a commonage farmer has other priority environmental assets on his or her privately owned land, he or she may qualify for GLAS plus if the combination of this and his commonage actions pushes him or her over the €5,000 ceiling. The new scheme is currently before the European Commission for approval as part of the overall rural development programme. Once approval is granted, my Department will open the scheme as soon as possible.
If an anomaly exists between publicly owned land and privately owned commonage, I am not aware of it but I will examine the issue. I do not think this is an issue.
I will check the issue given that the Deputy raised it. My understanding is we have made a decision on the GLAS programme for all commonage that the payment will be €120 per hectare. I will check and come back to the Deputy.
It is also essential that the Minister ensures all rules and regulations are tied up within a short time and that the scheme is expedited to give the planners an opportunity. It must also be sent to the EU Commission as speedily as possible to ensure farmers qualify for their payments at an early date in the new year. Sustaining viability in farming is dependent on the success of GLAS and being able to qualify for the full €7,000 with regard to the top-up payment. It needs to be simplified to give people the maximum opportunity to obtain the total benefit. Will the Minister ensure it is streamlined?
It went to the Commission in the first week in July and we expect a draft response on 3 October. If the Commission has any problems, there will be negotiations. This is with regard to the overall rural development programme and not just GLAS. GLAS is a big part of it but it is only one part because it also includes island communities, disadvantaged area payments, targeted agriculture modernisation scheme payments and young farmer supports.
Some people have been quite critical of entry to GLAS. When the scheme is fully up and running, it will spend €260 million a year. It is a huge environmental scheme and a massive initiative. We hope to have between 25,000 and 30,000 farmers in the scheme in its first year. We hope to be able to launch it in December, or earlier if we can. We have spoken to farming organisations and agricultural consultants and planners. They need at least five months to prepare all of the farmers' applications for the scheme because if we want to include between 25,000 and 30,000 farmers, it means 35,000 or 40,000 farmers could apply. This means that potentially one third of all farmers in Ireland could apply for GLAS. It will take a lot of management to ensure all of the applications get in on time given the fact that outside of Teagasc there are only 400 planners in the country. There is a big job to be done. We will then need to assess all of the applications. If we receive all of the applications by May or June, the assessment procedure will take until September and we hope to start payments under the new scheme by the end of next year. This is the timetable agreed by all the farm bodies because everybody wants to include as many farmers as we can. I could do it much quicker if I was only including 6,000 or 7,000 farmers, but people want to include as many farmers as we can, as do I. Many farmers are coming out of REPS and want a new scheme quickly. We will do it as fast as we can but it is a big job.
Does Deputy Fleming have another question?
I wish to ask the Minister the position regarding the issues farmers are facing with regard to land eligibility penalties.
I meant that the Deputy is entitled to another supplementary question on this matter.
Given the dilemma facing farmers because of the Russian sanctions on food and a general reduction in their incomes, I take it that the Minister is sincere in his efforts to advance the scheme as quickly as possible. I ask him to keep a focus on it and ensure farmers receive their rightful moneys at an early stage.
I will respond, to give Deputy Ó Cuív a chance to deal with Question No. 5. Of course we are responding to all types of challenges to agriculture this year. There has been much pressure on the beef industry, as Deputy Fleming knows. There may well be pressure on dairy prices over the next six or eight months. There is pressure on some arable farmers, although they have had great weather and very good harvests with regard to yield and quality.
Price has not been good in that sector. Of course we have the Russian-imposed ban on certain agrifood products. Of course we want to get payments out as soon as we can. That is why we will get a very significant portion of the disadvantaged areas scheme payments out this week. That is also why we are making the case to get the single farm payment out by the middle of next month or at least a 50% advance payment. It is also why we want to get GLAS opened up as soon as we can. I am not in the business of hanging on to money and resources that I should get out to farmers, but we must have systems that can do that credibly.
We return to Deputy Ó Cuív's first priority question, Question No. 2.
Beef Industry
Éamon Ó Cuív
Question:2. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the steps he is taking to deal with the present crisis in the beef trade; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35430/14]
I apologise. I could not get out of the National Ploughing Championships. It was hard enough to get in, but then I could not get out of it when I was in it.
No problem.
As the Minister has alluded to, there is a crisis in the beef industry. What is he doing to resolve it?
This has undoubtedly been a difficult year for the beef sector. Prices are down by about 10.5% on last year, which saw an all-time high. So, even though historically the prices at the moment do not look that bad when compared with the prices two or three years ago, certainly the prices that many farmers paid for store cattle last year on the back of very high prices has meant that this year many beef farmers are losing money or making very tight margins.
We are trying to do a number of things. First, it is important to say that I cannot set prices, but I can try to improve the structure of how the beef industry operates to increase the negotiating capacity of farmers. We are trying to do that specifically by setting up producer organisations in the not too distant future. We are in the middle of a consultation process on that right now and I would welcome feedback from Opposition parties on that. At the moment beef farmers, unlike those in the dairy sector, effectively negotiate on their own with factories when they bring animals in. We would like to set up producer organisations which would be legal entities, professionally run, representing 5,000, 7,000 or 10,000 beef farmers. They would negotiate with factories, probably on a regional basis so that they would have real bargaining power in terms of providing top quality animals at the right age and the right specification to get the best price possible for farmers. Of course there would be an ongoing negotiation with factories that would improve the communication significantly and deal with much of the mistrust that has existed between farmers and factories over the past 12 months or so.
We have also had a beef forum, as farmers are calling it. Michael Dowling completed a report for the second meeting. That report is being implemented where possible at the moment. We have increased the marketing fund through Bord Bia for Irish beef right across Europe.
There is a specific cross-Border problem, about which I am sure Deputy Martin Ferris will ask me later.
I thank the Minister.
I have spoken to my colleague in the North about the matter on numerous occasions at this stage and I will meet her again on Friday. I have also met representatives of supermarkets and written to retailers about it.
I thank the Minister.
We are also opening up new markets for Irish beef and are facilitating an increase in live cattle exports. We are working intensively on all the things I control in terms of policy and structural change whereby we can influence in the industry. I cannot, in a market-----
I thank the Minister. I call Deputy Ó Cuív and I will come back to the Minister.
I have a final comment. We are producing 15% more beef in volume terms this year and every market into which we are selling is either stagnant or reducing its consumption of beef. There are market forces here that have weakened prices.
I thank the Minister.
I cannot change that with policy decisions.
As the Minister knows and has alluded to, there has been a major problem with the nomadic cattle. We have the farcical situation that cattle born, bred and slaughtered on this island are not classed as Irish. I understand the Minister has had very fruitful discussions with his counterpart, the Minister, Ms O'Neill, MLA. I understand an agreement was reached to have the EU labelling on it as UK, but it would be called Irish beef. I ask the Minister for an update on his discussions with the supermarket chains on calling it Irish beef on the supermarket shelf. Did they ask for some assurances on traceability?
Were the Departments able to give that assurance - which should be no problem because both have very good systems - in order that they can get the product on the shelves, not as nomadic cattle but as Irish beef? While I welcome the discussions, results are needed from them.
It is important to bring clarity to this discussion because we have done everything we can to facilitate a new compromise label approach if someone wishes to pursue that course of action. However, that label must come from a processor in Northern Ireland and I cannot force that action. I have made it clear to the Minister, Ms Michelle O'Neill, that we have no problem with that to try to ensure there is a normalisation of the cross-Border trade. Approximately 50,000 animals normally go north from marts in Border counties and along the west of Ireland. Moreover, there has been quite a pick-up in that trade over the past two or three weeks, as anyone who attends marts will have seen, and a strong price is being paid for finishers and store cattle in marts. However, there is an issue in that when there is a lot of meat around, as is the case this year, retailers are much fussier about what they accept. They do not want label ambiguity, whereby consumers look at a labelled product that is produced in the Republic of Ireland and slaughtered in Northern Ireland, that is, the United Kingdom and therefore is not British or Irish but is something in between. I have written to the three UK retailers that buy and sell Irish beef. I have met representatives of Tesco, with whom we had a long meeting on this subject. Tesco is open to compromise in this regard to try to be helpful but there is a responsibility on a processor who is selling into that market to work out with retailers in the United Kingdom what such a compromise label actually would look like in the end.
Thank you. I will come back to the Minister but I must call Deputy Ó Cuív.
While the Department will support and facilitate it, ultimately I cannot force a label in another jurisdiction and this must happen in Northern Ireland.
My understanding is that one ultimate assurance sought from the Minister, Ms O'Neill, in respect of traceability has now been given. Would it be a good idea at this stage for both Ministers to meet the main multiples together and emphasise to them that there is full traceability and that the Irish label is completely satisfactory to both of them?
Second, the Minister mentioned producer organisations, which I welcome. However, this has not worked within the vegetable and horticultural industry, as the supermarkets still are too powerful. In line with the commitment in the Lisbon treaty that farmers are entitled to a fair price, will the Minister be taking up the issue with the incoming Commissioner, who he knows fairly well? Will he take up with him the issue about the need for the European Union to ensure the relationship between primary producers of all products across Europe and the multiples is more even than is the case at present and that just as there is legislation to protect the consumer, there should be equal legislation to enforce the commitment in the Treaty of Lisbon to ensure that the relationship of the primary producers with the supermarkets is on an even footing?
First, I agree with the Deputy on the last point. If one considers the trend over the past 15 to 20 years, one will see that primary producers on average had received approximately 30% of the end price of a product sold in a retail outlet. That figure now is approximately 20% and for many products is less than that. Consequently, there has been a squeeze which has forced more competitive pricing because retailers have become much bigger and their systems are much larger and more efficient. Moreover, in many cases, they are very demanding of primary producers. This is the reason producer organisations are needed and the collective response from the European Union on this in the Common Agricultural Policy has been to support actively producer organisations. I accept that more must be done and that it must be done collectively as the European Union because were Ireland to try to do this on its own, it simply would make itself totally price-uncompetitive.
Agreed.
Given that we export almost 90% of everything we produce into these other markets, we cannot force prices up in Ireland, which would mean the countries into which we sell at present simply would stop buying from us. There are issues in this regard but producer organisations do work in many cases. There are examples within the fruit and vegetable sectors in Ireland in which producers have been put under a lot of pressure but if the Deputy considers the mushroom business in Ireland, Monaghan Mushrooms is the largest producer of mushrooms in the world.
It is part of a very successful producer organisation structure, which has helped to build that infrastructure. In most other European countries, there are strong producer organisations representing primary producers and negotiating on their behalf very professionally. That is the type of structure we need in the beef industry.
We will now proceed to Question No. 5 in the name of Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív.
Rural Development Plan
Éamon Ó Cuív
Question:5. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the position regarding the proposed rural development plan submitted to Brussels; if the plan may be amended; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35431/14]
I had the opportunity during the summer to read the rural development plan submitted by the Minister to Brussels. I understand the next step in the process is that the European Commission will send its observations back to the Minister. Has he received those observations at this stage and, if so, will he publish them or undertake to do so when they are received? The public and Opposition spokespersons should have knowledge and sight of those observations.
I have not yet received the EU's observations on the rural development plan. Our applications were required to be submitted by 22 July and we managed to get them in by 3 July or thereabouts. They are being considered by the Commission at present and we are due to receive from it a formal observation on the draft RDP on 3 October. Thereafter, depending on the Commission's concerns, comments and, potentially, proposed amendments, we will have to enter into a process of consultation with it.
It would be appropriate at that point to have a conversation with Opposition spokespersons, perhaps in committee. I certainly will have nothing to hide at that stage. It would be helpful in identifying and dealing quickly with any issues that require clarification or any changes that should be made. After that we can go back to the Commission seeking formal approval to allow us to open up all the schemes we want to get up and running and which farmers are demanding, including the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS. Once we receive the Commission's response to the draft plan, the Deputy will find I am more than open to discussing it with him and other colleagues. The Oireachtas committee might be the best place to do it.
Is the Minister still confident that this whole process can be completed by the end of the year - namely, receiving the observation back from the Commission and completing whatever negotiations are required?
In regard to the GLAS, is it the case that there will be no prepayments? In other words, if payments are made in 2015, will it only be possible to pay farmers for the part of 2015 for which they are in the scheme? If, for example, the scheme opens on 1 September, will the Minister be able to pay them 75% of what is due in September, October, November and December?
I will have to clarify it, but that is my understanding of how it will work.
That was what I was informed by the Minister's officials, but I would like it on the record. There is some loose talk that there might be massive payments under the GLAS which would apply from the beginning of the year or even the day of application. The Minister is saying today that everybody will be admitted into the scheme, in one tranche, at the same time and the clock will start on that day. Am I correct, then, in saying that if payment is made in December, it will be 75% of the proportion of the year that one is actually in the scheme?
It is important to note that we cannot legally pay a farmer for a time period in which he or she is not in the scheme. The answer to the Deputy's first question is "Yes"; I am confident we can get this done by the end of the year. In fact, I hope we can get it done before the end of November, so that we can open up the GLAS in December and farmers will have the four to five-month period which everybody agrees is necessary, because of the numbers involved in the scheme, to get their applications in. We will then need a couple of months to assess those applications. If we get them in by May or June of next year, it will be September before we can decide on the 25,000 to 30,000 farmers who will be accepted into the scheme. Once they are accepted, participants will receive payments from that point onward. If it is October, November and December of next year, then payment will be on the basis of those three months in 2015.
I assure the Deputy that we want to get payments out as quickly as we can, but there is a process that must be gone through.
As I said earlier, if I accepted 6,000 or 7,000 farmers into GLAS, it could be done much more quickly and they would be in far earlier but that is not what farm bodies wanted. The demand from all stakeholders was that they wanted as many farmers in as possible in the first tranche of GLAS and we are trying to accommodate that but it will take a bit of time.
Realistically, it is not because the Minister does not have the money. Allowing for what the Minister said in terms of October, November and December, that works out at a total payout of €30 million to 30,000 farmers. It is approximately €1,000 apiece. Three quarters of a quarter works out a less than one fifth so we will round it up to €1,000 to each farmer, totalling €30 million. That is the figure. I have heard demands for €200 million but I keep saying it is not possible for the Minister to pay that out because the rules do not allow it.
For what its worth, I appreciate the Deputy's help on this because we need to be realistic with farmers in terms of what is possible. I am trying to deliver GLAS as quickly as I can but there will be teething problems opening a scheme which accepts 25,000 to 30,000 in the first tranche. There will be problems and issues which will need clarification. Some farmers will get paid early, certainly before the end of next year, but other farmers will have to clarify issues, paperwork and so on which will spill over into January. In my estimation, most of the payments next year for the first tranche of GLAS will happen in the November, December, January and February period, which will span two financial years.
Even if everybody got paid by Christmas, it would still be €30 million.
Yes, it would be that kind of figure. I do not want to commit to hard and fast figures because that would be wrong but given the indications we are getting, I suspect it will not be a million miles away from that.
Agriculture Scheme Eligibility
Tom Fleming
Question:6. Deputy Tom Fleming asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the position regarding issues that farmers face on the land eligibility penalties; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35260/14]
The question relates to issues in regard to land eligibility. This is a very serious matter. It seems more than 33,000 land parcels are affected. Eligibility or ineligibility is a very grey area and I ask that the Minister makes every effort to minimise the impact on the Irish farmers affected.
The Deputy will be aware of the value of the EU-funded direct payment schemes to Ireland. Each year, farmers in Ireland benefit from funding of more than €1.5 billion under schemes such as the single farm payment scheme, the disadvantaged areas scheme, agri-environment schemes and so on. This comprises the entire net income of many thousands of Irish farmers.
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. All of the lands declared by farmers must be eligible if these lands benefit from payment under one of more or these schemes. Under the terms and conditions of the direct aid schemes, which includes the single payment scheme, farmers are obliged to declare only eligible land when making their applications and are to exclude ineligible features such as roads, buildings, farmyards, dense scrub, etc. These claims are then recorded on the Department's land parcel identification system, LPIS. Given the importance of the LPIS database in underpinning direct aid payments worth in excess of €1.5 billion annually, my Department is obliged under EU regulations to ensure its accuracy.
Following consultation with the EU Commission, as part of the normal accounting process, my Department was requested to undertake a complete review of the LPIS database. This ongoing review is of major significance as the Commission is seeking to disallow €181 million of funding to Ireland relating to payments over the past five years. As I have explained to the House on a number of occasions, this is currently the subject of an Irish appeal to the EU conciliation body. This land eligibility review has resulted in the necessity to adjust parcels of a significant number of applicants, where it was established that some ineligible features had been included. In certain circumstances, these adjustments are giving rise to penalties.
As I have said previously when I outlined the numbers involved, the vast majority of farmers in Ireland are not affected by this but some are affected in a minor way - we are trying to deal with those farmers - and a relatively small number of farmers have a big issue in this regard. We will deal with the latter farmers on a case-by-case basis in as practical a way as we can. I assure the Deputy I am not in the business of putting anybody out of business.
We are all aware there was no intent on the part of the vast majority of farmers who are affected by these regulations to break any sort of rule. Everything was done in good faith. The new satellite imagery system was introduced mainly to deal with marginal land. Much of this is questionable in terms of what the satellite has ascertained. Farmers consider they have grassland, even though it may be rough grazing. This is one of the aspects that have been ruled ineligible. It is a harsh way to deal with the matter. Some farmers will face massive claims for money drawn down.
The idea that we can just ignore this because farmers think they are being unfairly treated is simply not going to work. Other countries have been fined huge sums of money, amounting to more than €1 billion in a number of cases, because of this issue. We are trying to address the issue with as much accuracy as we can in order that farmers who have over-claimed, either by accident or otherwise, will primarily be the ones who give back money they should not have drawn down in the first place. This is a difficult process because we have to assess every land parcel in the country, of which there are hundreds of thousands, but we cannot ignore it. I recognise that some people will feel unfairly treated. That is why we have an appeals mechanism within the Department and a second appeals mechanism that is separate from the Department if people feel the Department might have it in for them. The latter mechanism is chaired by Mr. Padraig Gibbons, who is a much respected individual in the agrifood sector in Ireland. People are using those appeal systems and they are successful in some cases. The percentage is actually pretty good. We are trying to help people as best we can but we cannot ignore the issue because we will have to pay €181 million if we do so. That money would have to come out of the agrifood budget. I am not willing to accept that when, in my view, the figure should be much lower. That is what we are seeking to negotiate.
I acknowledge that the Minister is making his best effort with the European Commission but I ask him to go back to the table, particularly in regard to retrospective payments. A large number of farmers will be forced out of business if they have to go back over five years, as is being threatened. This is not an acceptable situation. It is well known that surveys are being carried out in respect of single farm payments. Many beef suckler and sheep farmers depend on the 100% rate of single farm payment to stay in business. It is practically the sole income for many farmers. In view of the significant detrimental effect this will have if it is pursued in the manner we have been led to expect, the Minister needs to work his weight to advance the position of Irish farmers.
I assure the Deputy we are trying to accommodate farmers as best we can. I have spent many hours speaking to my officials, farming organisations and farmers to figure out how we can do this in a way that satisfies the Commission in terms of returning public moneys that should never have been drawn down in the first place, while also managing any penalties that may be imposed in a way that is fair. We will investigate options for repayment schedules over a number of years in order that we do not target farmers excessively.
We will continue to try to be as flexible as we can. Most people who understand this issue would accept that if we just ignore it or refuse to pay, we will simply be fined a large lump sum of money which would go way beyond the figure we were effectively overpaid on lands where money should not have been drawn down.
We are still around the table; we have never left the table with the Commission representatives. We are now going to a conciliation process and we are preparing a very significant case. We have already sent the conciliation group a very detailed submission and we will give a verbal case to back up that in the not too distant future. We are looking to try to minimise the overall exposure for Irish farming so we can manage it in a way that is as farmer-friendly as possible.