Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Nov 2015

Vol. 898 No. 1

Priority Questions

Before we begin, I must ask Members to observe the time limits for questions. Yesterday, many Members’ questions were not reached because other Members went over the time limit. It is disappointing when that happens.

GLAS Administration

Éamon Ó Cuív

Question:

1. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the progress to date in the roll-out of the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41413/15]

There is a general interest in GLAS. Will the Minister provide an update on the progress of the roll-out of the scheme? In particular, will he outline the average payment amount approved for farmers who have been accepted into the scheme?

The 27,000 applications submitted in the first tranche of GLAS were very much in line with the projections I made when launching the scheme. This substantial response provides us with an important signal of the ongoing importance farmers place on the sustainable management of their resources. In October, some 24,500 approval letters began issuing to farmers confirming their acceptance into the scheme. A further 2,000 cases have required some further investigation. As a result of this review, these applicants will be informed shortly whether they have been accepted into tranche 1 of the scheme. To date, 400 applicants have not met the minimum criteria for acceptance into tranche 1 of the scheme.

In terms of payments associated with tranche 1, my Department will be issuing before the end of this year 85% of the 2015 part-year payments for all those applications approved with a 1 October 2015 commencement date.

In addition, I launched a second tranche of GLAS in October 2015. The closing date for the submission of applications under this tranche is 7 December. The level of interest in tranche 2 has matched the experience of tranche 1. So far more than 10,000 applications have already been registered on the online GLAS tranche 2 application system. With a further two weeks to go before the closing date, it is clear the uptake in this tranche of the scheme will be significant and likely to match, or even possibly exceed, expectations.

This level of uptake in the scheme is a clear demonstration of the commitment of farmers to protecting, conserving and enhancing the environment while developing their farm businesses in a sustainable manner. The range and extent of actions and prescriptions that farmers have committed to under GLAS will deliver substantial environmental benefits in the years ahead. These actions will improve and maintain our water quality and will encourage biodiversity and the maintenance of valuable habitats while also promoting climate change mitigation. Several important targets set out for GLAS over the entire rural development programme period have already been achieved under tranche 1, such as the planting of hedgerows.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

My vision for the development of agriculture is founded on the guiding principle that future development must be delivered and achieved in a sustainable manner, economically, socially and environmentally. GLAS is a practical demonstration of the Government’s commitment to supporting and following through on this principle. The scheme is part of a comprehensive suite of measures that are targeted at enabling, encouraging and supporting farmers in further developing their farm enterprises and managing their resources in a sustainable manner, while at the same time delivering important public goods for the whole of society now and into the future.

I keep tabling parliamentary questions on this issue but I do not seem to get an answer. Of the 24,830 applications approved, what will be the average payment per farmer? Many people are anxious to find this out.

What progress has been made to date with the commonage plans that are an integral part of GLAS? Will the Minister once again confirm that farmers will be paid by Christmas for commonages, irrespective of whether there is a plan in place for them?

There has been much discussion and debate around the commonage issue to ensure that GLAS accommodates the complexity of putting a collective commonage plan in place. We gave more time for that to be finalised. As long as farmers have signed up to the finalisation and preparation of that plan, then they will be paid.

If the Deputy had asked about the average payment in the form of a question, I would probably have the exact answer.

I have tabled a few questions over the past several weeks.

We have not even finalised the exact number yet.

The Minister could give me a figure for the 24,830 applications.

With respect, that was not the question the Deputy asked. I have given the answer to the question he asked.

I put it as a supplementary question.

As I said before, the expectation, and what we are budgeting for, is that the average payment will be quite close to the maximum payment of €5,000. Obviously, it will be less than that, but it is not going to be significantly less. As soon as we have that average figure, which is only a matter of weeks, I will make it available. There is no hidden agenda. It depends on how many people apply for it.

We are able to read figures given authoritatively by the Department to the Irish Farmers’ Journal. However, Deputies who table a parliamentary question - who one would think would get priority in the dissemination of information - do not seem to be able to get the same information. I find that quite extraordinary.

I do not have the figures because we have not yet finalised them.

How can indications of the figure be given to the Irish Farmers’ Journal?

The Irish Farmers’ Journal deduced its own figures. It cannot have an average figure because I have not signed off on every application.

Yes, but the Minister has signed off on 24,830 applications already, and he could give some indication as to the average payment. There seems to be some reason, however, why the Minister is reluctant to give information.

The scheme has not yet been finalised.

Will the Minister give an update as to the number of expressions of interest for tranche 2? Will he confirm whether advisers can submit applications on the computer system and, if so, how many applications have been received?

If fewer than 13,000 applications have been received by 7 December, will the Minister leave the scheme open until 13,000 have been received? Alternatively, if more than 13,000 applications are received, will he let all of those applications, as along as they are valid, through the process and allow those applicants join GLAS?

I answered some of those questions in the reply I gave. First, I said that so far 10,000 applications have been registered.

They are expressions of interest-----

No. They have already been registered on the online application process for tranche 2.

But I am talking about applications. There is a difference.

No. The way in the which the system works is that people register online, and then they put up further details on the system as they get them, which turns a registration into a formal application. That is how it works. We expect to get 10,000 or so applications; in fact, we will get more than that number under GLAS tranche 2, which is great. There were some concerns when GLAS was originally designed about the numbers who would apply, but now we certainly will not be short of applications. We will try to accommodate up to 40,000 applications between GLAS tranche 1 and tranche 2. I think we will be pretty close to that figure. Obviously, if we exceed that number, we must be sure we can budget for the number of people applying, but I think we have got the numbers about right. We are way ahead of where we said we would be. We said we would probably take in between 25,000 and 30,000 applicants under tranche 1 and up to 35,000 applicants in tranche 2, and now we are saying that we will take up to 40,000 applicants. Therefore, we are way ahead of where we said we would be, which is good, because we want to get to the figure of 50,000 as soon as we can, although obviously that has to be staggered in terms of the budget that is available.

Milk Quota

Martin Ferris

Question:

2. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the person who made the decision not to prosecute anyone in relation to the milk quota irregularities involving Glanbia, Clongowes Wood College and a person in County Tipperary, which were investigated by his Department; if An Garda Síochána was made aware of the details of this case; and if he will waive his legal privilege in order to disclose the opinion of the Office of the Chief State Solicitor on this case. [41417/15]

I am returning to the Minister with a question regarding milk quota irregularities involving Glanbia, Clongowes Wood school and a farmer in County Tipperary, which have been investigated by the Minister's Department. Was the Garda made aware of the details of this case, and will the Minister waive legal privilege in order to disclose the opinion of the Office of the Chief State Solicitor on the case?

The Deputy is aware of the background to this case, which I outlined in the House in my reply to a parliamentary question on 7 October. In short, my Department conducted an investigation into allegations that milk collections from one supplier were credited to the account of another, and that this was being facilitated by the milk purchaser concerned.

I have already indicated that following this investigation, I accepted the recommendation of my officials that a prosecution in this case should not be pursued. In making its recommendation my Department had regard to all of the facts, including the corrective action taken, the lack of financial gain for any of the parties concerned, the fact that the parties’ obligations under the milk quota regulations had ultimately been met, that the superlevy was paid and that there was no financial loss to other farmers, the Exchequer or the EU. Furthermore, the ending of the milk quota regime meant that there was no deterrent factor for other quota holders in pursuing a prosecution. Against that backdrop, my Department did not refer the matter on to An Garda Síochána.

I have also indicated that I instructed that the relevant papers be sent to the Chief State Solicitor for advice, that that office appointed a prosecuting counsel to examine the facts of the case, and that my Department also had regard to that advice and to the likelihood of a successful prosecution, given the details of the case and the standard of proof required, in making its recommendation. As always, the opinion received from counsel is subject to legal privilege and it would not be appropriate for me to disclose its contents at this time.

As I said previously, this was a case that I was concerned about. I was the one who insisted on an immediate investigation and it was a very robust one. It resulted in the company concerned having a full investigation of its own. It also resulted in much correspondence between my Department and the company concerned, and in the resignation of the individual involved from the board of Glanbia recently. We have acted in a fairly robust manner on this case, but I have to take the advice of my officials and the legal advice and make balanced decisions on that basis.

The person in question did not resign willingly. He resigned as a result of the issue being raised in this House and raised continuously with the Department. I find it difficult to comprehend how somebody in a very prominent position on the board of Glanbia, with a milk quota being allocated to Clongowes Wood, was able to use that milk quota without the knowledge of Glanbia, thereby committing these irregularities. When one compares that to the way other farmers have been treated around the country, it stinks to high heaven. Did the Minister say there was a Garda investigation into this matter?

No, there was no Garda investigation.

Why was the matter not referred to the Garda? This was blatant attempted fraud at the very least. A major milk processing company, Clongowes Wood College and the farmer were all involved, and this matter was not referred to the Garda. Why not? Most people would be of the opinion that if somebody else had been involved the matter would have been referred to the Garda.

I agree with the Deputy on this. It should not have happened and it was not allowed to happen-----

-----because our systems picked it up and we responded to it very robustly. Anybody who has been involved with our special investigations unit, as it was at the time, knows that it is pretty robust in terms of how it gets to the bottom of things. It works with and takes advice from the Garda on a regular basis. People were interviewed under caution. We followed up on this as to the detail. There was a full investigation by both the Department and the company concerned, and there was an explanation as to why this happened - which I do not want to go into, although I can brief the Deputy on it if he wishes - and the circumstances that led to what was effectively the use of a quota that had been assigned somewhere else in a separate part of the country. We made it very clear at the time that this was totally unacceptable, regardless of the explanation as to why it was happening. There was an explanation, but it was not acceptable to me. That is why a full superlevy fine was applied. Also, we referred this file to the Office of the Chief State Solicitor because I felt it was appropriate to do that in order that we could have an independent assessment of this overall case. The advice I got-----

I have to bring in Deputy Ferris now.

I will be able to reply one more time.

Yes, as there is another question and another reply.

This was not initiated, to my knowledge, until an article appeared in a newspaper. That is what sparked this investigation, because the matter was in the public domain. This did not just come down through the system. That is my knowledge of it.

That is not true.

Also, I have reason to believe, from information I have been given - whether it is true or otherwise - that the Chief State Solicitor recommended that this matter be referred to the Garda. In the interest of members of the public, we need to know whether that is the case. Did the Chief State Solicitor make a recommendation that this matter be investigated by the Garda? If that recommendation was made and the matter was not investigated, it brings into question the situation regarding the Department and the Minister. The Minister needs to clear that up.

To be clear on this, I can talk about the advice that I got within my own Department, which states that the facts are not so clear as to provide a sufficient degree of probability that a prosecution would succeed, given the legal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. It further states that it is also relevant that the quota system is now abolished and therefore there is no merit in taking a case in order to encourage others to obey the law in this matter. It goes on to state that the full superlevy of €143,000 was ultimately paid in this case and therefore there was no loss to the national or EU purse, and that taking an uncertain prosecution would be more likely to expose the State to costs. Taking all of these factors into account, it recommends against prosecution. That is the advice I have.

Who gave the Minister that advice?

That was my Secretary General.

What was the advice of the Chief State Solicitor?

That is on the basis of the legal recommendations that came to him and me, based on the report we received from the Office of the Chief State Solicitor.

Did the Chief State Solicitor say that prosecution would not be successful?

We must proceed to the next question.

Commonage Land Use

Michael Fitzmaurice

Question:

3. Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine in relation to the basic payment scheme, why he is continuing to rely on maps and reports that were prepared on foot of an inspection by a district superintendent (details supplied) in County Galway in August 2012 when his appeals office has stated, in its decision of 26 August 2015, that the report from this inspection cannot be relied upon as it provides no quantification or description for the deductions made; his plans to rectify the maps in accordance with the expert evidence provided by the applicant, detailing the precise eligibility of the site in the application under the basic payment scheme 2015; his plans to expeditiously facilitate the payments concerned; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41415/15]

In relation to what is referred to as the Keelderry commonage, a number of commonages, including the Keelderry commonage, were selected for ground inspection in 2010 as part of a review of commonage parcels declared by applicants under the 2010 single payment scheme, SPS, and less favoured areas, LFA, schemes. A number of inspections of this parcel of land were carried out in 2010 and 2011 resulting in a reduction of the determined area of this commonage. There was one inspection, which the claimants are seeking to rely on, which resulted in a large area of the commonage being deemed eligible for the above schemes, but a number of subsequent inspections has resulted in a much reduced area being deemed the determined eligible area for the purposes of both schemes. The circumstances in which the first inspection was carried out are currently the subject of litigation and, therefore, I am precluded from commenting any further on that inspection. That will be a problem for some of the later questions as well.

The findings with regard to Keelderry have been the subject of a number of legal actions and appeals. The appeal referred to concerns the 2012 SPS, disadvantaged areas scheme, DAS, and other area based schemes of one of the claimants. The decision of the independent official was to partially allow the appeal. However, the findings of the appeals officer in that specific case are not a finding on the inspection criteria or that the inspectors’ interpretation or methodology cannot be relied upon.

The relevant extract from the appeals office decision from August 2015 states: “Both sides provided evidence at the oral hearing as to the nature of the growth that exists on parcel G30106047, and while there are obviously roadways, active turbary and quarry areas, I must rely on the inspection reports provided by the Department and those reports provide no quantification or description on which to rely for the deductions made within parcels G30106047, G30106046 and G30106057.” Most importantly the decision adds: “In any event the question at appeal is whether or not these parcels met the 2012 eligibility requirement for you [sic - use] of agricultural activity as defined.” Therefore the areas of the parcels were not to be determined by the appeals office but rather whether the applicant carried out an agricultural activity.

Notwithstanding documentation submitted by the applicant as part of his 2015 basic payment scheme application, the Department maintains its position, as the competent authority on this matter, on the eligible area of this commonage.

I have three booklets with me which were produced by the same ecologist. Two of them have been accepted but for one reason or another one is the sticky wicket on this commonage. The three are side by side. The same ecologist did everything but for whatever reason there is a problem with one. At first, 95% of it was accepted, but then that was thrown out the window. What has happened in this case is that the people inspecting it are the people who are investigating it. That cannot be. The Minister must bring in a new team to examine this.

A delegation was in Europe during the week. I attended a committee meeting which examined the new booklet on determining eligibility. That is not yet recognised in Europe. One reference has been sent to Europe on our booklet, but farmers and inspectors are operating with it at present. I am not blaming the inspectors on the ground, because there are no criteria at present for an inspector, nor have there been through the years. There is no planning, and no courses are given to guide an inspector. In one place a person could do one thing while in another place a person could do the opposite. We must have certain criteria. Article 4.1 is used by the Welsh and we have copied them, but there is no legal basis for it.

The Deputy should be careful about what he seeks here in terms of clear definitions of what is in and what is out in commonage areas along the west of Ireland. We are trying to get more farming activity into commonage areas. We are trying to be as flexible and generous as possible within the rules to try to include as much land as possible to support farmers in those areas. The Deputy should be careful about what he is seeking here in terms of Commission definitions, Commission inspections and so forth to do this. We have been working with the Commission to produce a set of guidelines. They are based on pictorial guidelines and we have published those to help farmers determine what is and is not eligible on land that is marginal. The land might contain a large amount of rock or there might be limited growth in certain areas and so forth. We are trying to ensure that we maximise the amount of land in disadvantaged and marginal areas that is fit for agricultural use, is kept accordingly and is agricultural land in its own right.

In this particular case, which has been ongoing for some time, I have tried to find a compromise and to go through independent appeals processes. Multiple Deputies, from my party and other parties, have raised this case with me. They have approached various offices, Ministers and so forth. We have tried to come to a compromise on a way forward on this. It is now going the legal route which means I am limited in what I can do.

We all wish for one thing, that farmers will be looked after in this. However, it appears that many farmers are being cut, especially in the west of Ireland. That is to put it simply. In fairness to the inspectors, one guy will say that the heather must be up to one's knee, another could say it must be up to one's shin and another might say it must be up to one's ankle. We do not know where we are going.

Do not exaggerate for effect. That does not happen.

The farmers do not know where they stand. Look at the amount of penalties that have been incurred in these areas by families who need the money. Departmental inspectors are going around at present. In this case, the people who have investigated it for the second time were already on the case on the first occasion. That cannot be. There must be a clean sweep with new people, including an ecologist, to work with the different designations. One cannot have the same group of people looking at the same problem. We cannot have even one of the same people going back to examine it. In that case why not get new people to examine it and work with this ecologist? Most of his work was accepted in two of the applications. That guy is in Brussels at present. Why not work with him to solve this problem?

There are independent ecologists all over the country. We have inspectors and we have a job to do. Our inspectors are very experienced. They understand commonage and how it works and marginal land and how it works. In this case there was an inspection. There was another inspection to verify that, which happens all of the time. There was another inspection after that to verify the verification, as it were, because people were not happy and were raising concerns about it. The appeal process was gone through fully. I asked the previous Secretary General of the Department to look at it because the issue was raised. We are trying to get to the bottom of it and to be fair to the farmers.

At the same time we have to ensure we are consistent with the rules and regulations. Otherwise we will be audited by the Commission and we will be exposed.

We have issued the guidelines document, which Deputy Fitzmaurice seems to be dismissing even though most farmers have welcomed it. All farming organisations have welcomed it. There are clearer guidelines than ever before available now in terms of what is eligible and what is not eligible, and they are in the form of pictures and clear language in order that farmers can understand them.

Grocery Industry Competition

Éamon Ó Cuív

Question:

4. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the steps he has taken to ensure that horticulture farmers receive an equitable price for their produce during Christmas 2015 and that there will be no repeat of the events of Christmas 2013; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41414/15]

The Minister might remember the debacle at Christmas time two years ago in respect of the virtual giving away of vegetables and the destruction it caused to our horticulture industry. I hope the Minister will tell us today that the Government is taking firm action to ensure there will not be a repeat this year of that type of behaviour by the supermarkets and a misuse of their excessive control of the market in a manner which operates against the interests of the agriculture and horticulture industries and the people.

The legislative power to tackle the matters mentioned are under the auspices of the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, together with the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission. The commission, which was established on 31 October 2014, is the statutory body responsible for enforcing consumer protection and competition law.

During 2014, the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation introduced the Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2014. The Act provides for the making of provisions for regulating certain practices in the grocery goods sector. I understand the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation is finalising the implementation of grocery regulations under this legislation. This, I hope, will guide the supermarkets in how they deal with producers in a fair and reasonable manner.

The price levels struck by growers with retail outlets are entirely a commercial matter. While it is not my role to set supermarket prices for agricultural products or to be involved in price negotiations between growers and retailers, like the Deputy, I very much encourage greater co-operation and discussion between all parties to ensure the viability of the largest number of Irish growers possible.

Has the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation consulted the Minister of State on the regulations he is drawing up? Has he given the Minister of State assurances that he will do more than guide the supermarkets on how to deal with producers in a fair and reasonable manner? Does the Minister of State not think we need a little more than guidance to ensure the supermarkets behave in such a manner? Does the Minister of State intend to set up a horticultural forum analogous to the one set up by his colleague, the Minister, where not only would the producers and An Bord Bia be involved but the supermarkets would be involved too? Everyone should be brought around the table and a few heads banged together.

I have ongoing discussions with all sections of the horticulture industry and am acutely aware of the difficulties encountered in producing and selling product. I am also acutely aware of the potential for import substitution. I continually meet them and discuss the issues with them. I am open to any dialogue that will improve the sector. It does not need a special forum because the sections have total access to me at all times.

What about the supermarkets?

I have had discussions with the supermarkets but I am precluded by law from dictating to them. I cannot interfere with pricing. We have be to very careful about that because it is written in law. I have encouraged them and spoken to them but I have to be very careful about it.

The Deputy might remember it was his Government that got rid of below-cost selling.

Article 45.2.iii of the Constitution provides, "That, especially, the operation of free competition shall not be allowed so to develop as to result in the concentration of the ownership or control of essential commodities in a few individuals to the common detriment." Whatever about the law, the Minister of State is constitutionally bound to ensure the common good prevails in this case. Surely the common good in this case would ensure the price of vegetables would be pitched in order that we could continue to have a horticulture industry in this country that can provide that essential commodity to our people. This would ensure the control of a few individuals, in this case, a small number of supermarkets, is not exercised in such a way that it effectively controls essential commodities.

I want at all times to ensure the producer is paid a fair price. I have already stated that I cannot interfere.

The Minister of State can. It says so in Article 45.2.iii of the Constitution.

The legislation does not allow me to interfere. The reality is that we will encourage the supermarkets and do everything that is possible. I remind the Deputy that because of our actions last year and the discussions - they were only discussions - we did not have a repeat of what happened the previous year. I hope coming into this Christmas the supermarkets will abide by the general thrust of what they have told me. I do not condone or want them to be doing it. It is bad for the product and for encouraging people to eat vegetables. It sets vegetables out as product that is being dumped. It does not do anything good for the promotion of vegetables.

Horse Racing Industry Funding

Martin Ferris

Question:

5. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his views that the imposition of a foal levy based on the advertised value of the nomination fee of a stallion means that when the actual fee paid is less than the advertised price and breeders are unfairly penalised [41418/15]

I would like to hear the Minister's views on the imposition of a foal levy based on the advertised value of the nomination fee of a stallion which means that when the actual fee is paid, it is less than the advertised price. Are breeders being unfairly penalised?

I thank Deputy Ferris for raising this issue. We had a brief discussion on it in the committee a number of days ago. Horse Racing Ireland is a commercial State body established under the Horse and Greyhound Racing Act 2001 and it is responsible for the overall administration, promotion and development of the horse racing industry. The current foal levy scheme, which was introduced in 2000 on a statutory basis, applies to all thoroughbred foals registered in Ireland. The proceeds of the levy are used by Horse Racing Ireland to help fund the Irish Equine Centre, which is very important, the Irish Thoroughbred Breeders Association and Irish Thoroughbred Marketing. These organisations provide key support structures to the Irish thoroughbred breeding industry.

The foal levy is a relatively small element of the overall cost of keeping and covering a mare and, for reasons of practicality, is based on the advertised nomination fee rather than the actual fee paid. By way of example, the lowest foal levy band incurs a fee of €35 and the second band is €50. Most small breeders fall into one of these two bands. The highest band, for stallion fees in excess of €30,000, is €650. At coverings of up to €15,000, the differences between the foal levy bands are a maximum of €50. Breeders who pay an actual nomination fee that is less than the advertised nomination fee used to determine the foal levy band have already achieved a real saving. The associated levy should be considered in the context of the overall cost of breeding and keeping a foal. There is a very high compliance level with the foal levy scheme and it has been revised from time to time to ensure fairness in its application.

There is a foal levy committee which reviews annually the rates, bands and structure of the levy and there is quite a lot of consultation in this regard.

I understand that of the 7,000 or so registered breeders, 70% to 80% have only two or three mares. Many of them are small farmers. Would it not be far more equitable if breeders were to pay the foal levy based on the invoice price, that is, the actual cost of covering the mare, rather than the advertised price? The latter might be two or three times greater than what a small breeder is able to negotiate with a stallion owner. Moreover, such a change would be in line with other aspects of agricultural enterprise where levies are paid on invoice or sale price.

The Deputy's proposal is not unreasonable and it has been discussed. To be clear, small breeders in general operate at the lower end of the market in terms of the foal levy. In fact, last year, in the case of more than 30% of foals, or 2,346, the levy was paid at either €35 or €50, whereas 27% of the income for 2014 came from just 616 foals. The last time the levy was reviewed, the people who were paying at the higher end had their foal levy increased slightly and those at the lower end had it decreased slightly. In other words, we are trying to take into account the affordability issue. However, in the context of keeping a breeding mare and developing a foal for market, €35 or €50 is not a major factor one way or the other. The reason the levy is based on advertised value is that it is much easier to calculate and there is much less paperwork involved. Stallions are advertised at a certain value and it is on the basis of this advertised price that the foal levy is calculated. For administrative and accuracy reasons, it makes things much easier.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Is it not the case that other EU member states do not impose a foal levy? If so, are there implications for the regime in this country in the context of competition law and so forth? I have a list, which I presume came from the Department, which shows some breeders at the higher end paid a levy at 0.14% while some at the other end paid 3.3%. That is a significant discrepancy. I do not accept it would be far more difficult to charge based on the negotiated price of covering the mare rather than the advertised price. I cannot see how it would be any more difficult.

Whether or not foal levies are applied in other countries is not really the point. One might well ask whether other countries give €60 million per year towards the horse and greyhound racing industries. Ireland has its own structure in terms of supporting the racing industry. Indeed, I am not sure any other country in the world prioritises horse racing as much as we do. There are countries, like Britain and France, that have more wealth linked to horse racing in terms of private input, sponsorship and so on because they have larger audiences and they have links to betting tax and all the rest of it. We have a very supportive financial model for horse and greyhound racing which has helped to ensure the Irish thoroughbred industry remains a dominant force globally. Some 40% of thoroughbreds exported within the EU come from Ireland and we continue to be a hugely successful breeder of top thoroughbred horses. All the figures show that in terms of sales this year and so on.

Foal breeding is a small part of that large industry and it is right we should ask breeders to contribute. The calculation of the levy in terms of the rates, bands and structure must be handled by Horse Racing Ireland through its foal levy committee, in consultation with both big and small owners, to ensure we get the balance right. I have no problem with a change if that is what the industry wants, but we must ensure the levy remains simple to administer and easy to collect.

Top
Share