Vol. 1035 No. 3
6. Deputy Louise O'Reilly asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the reason the Government has failed to ensure the reinstatement of access to the 12-mile limit around Rockall for the Irish fishing fleet, considering that the position of the British Government is entirely incompatible with international law. [11799/23]
Rockall is a traditional fishing ground for Irish fishermen, in particular Donegal fishermen. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has assessed the loss to be in the millions of euro. In the case of the likes of Greencastle, as much as 25% to 30% of the income could be lost. It is outrageous and has no basis in international law. Two years later, what is the Government doing about this?
As the Deputy is aware, Ireland has never made any claims to, nor has Ireland ever recognised UK sovereignty claims over, Rockall. Accordingly, it has not recognised a 12 nautical mile territorial sea around it. This remains the position of the Government.
The Government has been in contact with the relevant Scottish and UK authorities on Rockall over recent years and intensively since the beginning of 2021. Through this engagement, the Government is seeking to address the issues involved, reflecting the long-standing fishery patterns in the area.
Irish vessels have traditionally fished for haddock, which is subject to a quota limit, and squid, which, as the Deputy will be aware, is not subject to a quota limit, in the waters around Rockall. Haddock may be caught within and outside 12 nautical miles of Rockall, but squid is caught within six nautical miles of it. Other stocks caught in the waters around Rockall, within the 12-mile area and outside, are monk and megrim. The squid fishery around Rockall is known to be sporadic and varies from year to year. This is consistent with squid's short lifespan and erratic recruitment dynamics.
Approximately 25 Irish vessels have fished in the waters around Rockall during the spring and summer months in recent years. Under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, EU vessels must be licensed by the UK authorities. Since 1 January 2021, the licences issued by the UK to EU vessels, where granted, expressly preclude access to the 12 nautical mile zone around Rockall.
The Government is committed to finding a way forward on this issue that will support the important commercial fisheries around Rockall. We will continue to work closely with the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin, over the coming period to address the issues involved. To this end, Irish officials are in active ongoing contact with their Scottish counterparts on possible ways forward.
This is outrageous. There is no basis in international law for putting a nautical mile limit around an uninhabited rock. There is no basis for this under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS. It is absolute nonsense. How on earth is the Government tolerating this? How is it not being taken to international arbitration? Why did the Government sign off on the Maritime Jurisdiction Act on access for the British Government to and control of the area at a time when it is negotiating to reinstate our traditional fishing grounds to our fishermen? Who on earth would tolerate that?
We talk about Brexit and the attitude of the Tories. They have arbitrarily kicked Irish fishermen out of our traditional fishing grounds, with no international legal basis for doing so. I have raised this issue many times over the past two years on the floor of the House and nothing has been done about it. The Government has not called this out internationally or gone for international arbitration. How many times does the Government have to talk to these people before it does what is right by international law?
This is a matter that involves more than the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. The Department of Foreign Affairs has a key role to play.
I will outline some of the interventions made by Government in recent times. As Taoiseach, the Minister, Deputy Martin, last discussed the matter of Rockall with Scotland's First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, at the end of last year. It was agreed to prioritise this matter and continue to work together to seek to resolve the outstanding issues.
As Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Coveney met his Scottish counterpart, the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, Angus Robertson, to discuss the issue. They agreed to continue to prioritise this matter and work together to seek to resolve outstanding issues. Working together with the Department of Foreign Affairs, there are active discussions between the Irish and Scottish side exploring all options. Further discussions at political and official level are planned over the coming period.
Through these engagements, the Government is seeking to address the issues involved, reflecting long-standing fishery patterns in the area. The Government's position regarding the territorial claims on Rockall is consistent with long-standing Government policy.
Under Brexit, the British Government and fishermen around the coast of Britain regained 70% of what are now territorial waters. We lost about 15% of the overall value. In areas like pelagic fishing, nephrops and prawns, we were badly walloped. This industry in Ireland is currently being decommissioned. The whitefish sector in Ireland is about a third of what it was 15 years ago. This is the reality of the Irish fishing sector.
We have tolerated a situation whereby we are being excluded from our traditional fishing grounds in Rockall. Up to 30% of the value in somewhere like Greencastle is gone. We have allowed this to happen for two years. There is no basis in international law for this. It is an uninhabited rock. We cannot put a six or 12-mile limit around an uninhabited rock. It is utter nonsense. Why are we tolerating this?
I have clearly outlined the approach of the Government to this. We have a long-standing Government policy which has not changed. Our policy is very clear regarding the position of Rockall and we continue to engage diplomatically. We have a key role to play in our engagement with our partners in Scotland. I have outlined the steps that have been taken and which we will continue to take. We have agreed with the Scottish representatives to prioritise this at all levels, from the Office of the Taoiseach to the Department of Foreign Affairs. That prioritisation and working with Scotland will continue to try to find a solution to this because the Government position on Rockall has not changed.
9. Deputy Michael McNamara asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the processes that are in place for farmers, part of whose holding has recently been included as an ACRES co-operation area on the basis that it is a habitat conducive to breeding hen harriers, who believe the lands in question are not a suitable habitat for hen harriers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11783/23]
What processes are in place for farmers, part of whose holdings have recently been included in the agri-climate rural environment scheme, ACRES, co-operation area on the basis that it is a habitat conducive to breeding hen harriers, if they believe or it is evident that the land in question is not suitable habitat for hen harriers?
ACRES is the central agri-environment climate measure in Ireland's Common Agricultural Policy Strategic Plan 2023-2027. It is a flagship agri-environmental scheme and it is intended that it will pay farmers €1.5 billion over the lifetime of the scheme. ACRES will play a huge role in terms of driving environmental improvements. It is the largest amount ever committed to an agri-environment scheme. I am delighted to see that so many farmers applied for ACRES, indicating their willingness to farm for the benefit of the environment and society. The submission of more than 46,000 applications shows the level of interest in participating in agri-environment schemes. The scheme forms part of Ireland's CAP strategic plan, which is the successor to the outgoing green, low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS.
On 1 March, the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, confirmed that all applicants who had submitted valid applications will be accepted to ACRES. Farmers should start to receive their approval letters this week. For those participants in the co-operation, CP, stream, CP teams will begin applying the appropriate scorecards to participants' holdings. The CP teams will use their knowledge of the land in the CP zones to assign a scorecard based on the habitat types found on farmers' lands. Ten scorecards have been developed by the Department and the CP teams. The majority of these, such as rough grazing, peatland, or grassland will have a broad application across the CP zones. Other scorecards are more specific, for example, the chough or Burren winterage scorecards. There is no scorecard specific to the hen harrier. The CP teams will use their expertise to apply the most appropriate scorecard to the habitat found. The key is to manage the land to improve the score achieved, which will have the benefit of enhancing the habitat for a range of species, and for the benefit of the wider environment. CP teams will work with farmers to help them to improve their land's score. This can be done by the careful application of non-productive investments, NPIs, and landscape actions, LAs. My Department is developing a list of NPIs and LAs that farmers can decide to carry out on their lands, mindful of the right action in the right place. Participants will work with CP teams and their advisers to choose the best action to improve their land and to address any issues that may be found.
I thank the Minister of State for her reply, but she did not answer my question. Is there an appeals process for someone whose land has been put into a co-operation area on the basis that it is suitable for the breeding of hen harriers and who believes it is not suitable? There is a lot of land in the Slieve Aughty range and on Slieve Bernagh, where it is proposed to build a wind farm, that is suitable for hen harrier breeding. However, there is land in various parts of Tulla and right across the foothills of the Slieve Aughty range that is suitable but there is also land that is not suitable. There was an appeals process when the designations were made for the special area of conservation, SAC. I accept that this is not an SAC; it is just an inclusion in a co-operation area. If the land is manifestly unsuitable, however, then surely there should be an appeals process. Otherwise, we are just wasting time. The Minister of State referred to flagship projects. There is a Ukrainian flag on Leinster Lawn today. These flagship projects will benefit the environment every bit as much as the Ukrainian flag on Leinster Lawn will benefit the morale of Ukrainian fighters in Bakhmut today. We love a bit of tokenism. The Government especially loves it, and the powers that be more broadly in this House, but sometimes we have to deal with realities too.
I do not know the details of the specific case referred to by the Deputy, but an appeals process should be available. I do not know, but I assume it would be in the case of any concerns or dissatisfaction regarding the result from the Department.
Many farmers wish their lands were in CP zones because of the higher payment rates involved. It is a collective approach in those areas to improve the habitat and the land. The ultimate aim of the CP projects is to put the needs of the land and the landscape first. We have seen how well that has worked in European innovation projects, EIPs, across the country in the past five or six years. This is an extension of that. If the Deputy's client is not happy with the situation-----
Constituent.
----- or however you want to describe it, that person should reach out to the Department. On the whole, however, if the CP team has designated the inclusion of the land in an area, then that is the area they are in.
I accept the Minister of State's acknowledgement that fairness would require that there should be an appeals process, but my question relates to what the appeals process involves. I have not received an answer to that question. We will take it that there should be one, and we will proceed from there. It is an acknowledgement on behalf of the Department that there should be an appeals process. If there is not an appeals process, I take it that one will be developed forthwith on the basis of what the Minister of State has said.
The Minister of State is correct. There are many farmers who would like to be in co-operation areas who are not but, equally, there are farmers whose lands have been designated for a purpose for which it is manifestly unsuited. There is a lot of criticism of farming by calendar. We are experiencing unseasonable weather. It is not unusual to have snow at this time of year. We had an exceptionally mild winter and suddenly we seem to be getting a winter weather in the spring. Farming by electoral area does not really work either. We must look at what is actually on the ground in order to designate areas. I agree with this particular constituent of mine who came to me that the lands in question are simply unsuitable for hen harriers. I wish there was more land across County Clare suitable for the hen harrier breeding, but his land is not suitable.
I will seek information on an appeals process and convey it to the Deputy. From his constituent's perspective, decisions are made by the CP teams. That is how the process in this regard has been set up. They are the experts. They are the people who identify lands. There appears to be a standoff as to whether the land in question is suitable. I think the Deputy's constituent would be happy for his land to be included in a CP area. Many farmers wish that their land were included. I will look into the situation for the Deputy and revert to him with the details.
It would be helpful sometimes to look into a situation before a decision is made rather than afterwards, but I appreciate the Minister of State's response.
10. Deputy Seán Canney asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his views on how farmers should dispose of cuttings from hedge trimming on their land; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9692/23]
I have a very simple question for the Minister of State. What are her views on how farmers should dispose of cuttings from hedge trimming on their lands. There have been some alterations to the rules. Perhaps she would enlighten me as to what farmers can do because there is a lot of confusion out there.
This issue has been topical for a number of years. As the Deputy is aware, hedge trimming is a routine and essential management practice for farmers on their land. In light of this and in anticipation of the ending of the practice of burning as a method to dispose of cuttings or green waste, we commissioned a study to explore the management of this agricultural waste in Ireland.
A feasibility study to sustainable management of agricultural green waste in Ireland was conducted by the Irish BioEnergy Association and published at the end of 2022. The study identified a number of feasible alternative options to burning while sustainably managing this waste material. The report is available on the Department's website. In a survey that was conducted as part of this study, 38% of farmers said that they had considered alternative uses for the cut material before resorting to burning and the report states that farmers are open to considering alternatives to burning.
Based on the conclusions and recommendations in this study, the Irish BioEnergy Association has been asked to examine a range of measures to ensure that the appropriate communication, awareness-raising and knowledge-transfer measures are in place to support the agricultural sector in making a successful orderly transition to alternative sustainable management practices and to make recommendations in this regard. This work will support farmers to make the necessary changes to their farming practices for when the latest and last exemption to the Regulation for Waste Management (Prohibition of Waste Disposal by Burning) Regulation ends.
I seek clarification in light of the fact that farmers are reading various things and there is much confusion. How long more will the regulations allow for the burning of the trimmings?
The Minister of State referred to alternatives. I was at a meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Oversight yesterday evening. One of the IFA representatives told us about a farmer in the south who was doing a good job with his cuttings. He was mulching them and creating fertiliser for the ground. He sold the surplus to his neighbouring farmers. It was great, except that he was told he had to cease, as it is was a commercial enterprise and it impacted on his grants and other such measures. In one way we are trying to do something and in another way we are trying to stop people from doing the same thing. There is significant confusion. The Department must clearly state what can be done and how long more the derogations will remain in place to allow burning to happen.
In the event that we include alternatives, how will the cost of doing so be recovered by farmers, who are at the pin of their collars trying to make a living?
An exemption under the legislation, which in the past allowed farmers to dispose of waste generated by agricultural practices by burning as a last resort, has been extended for a number of years. It was never intended that this exemption would be extended indefinitely. The exemption for the practice of cut agricultural green waste was due to end on 1 January last, but regulations were signed on 27 January for an extension of the exemption. The regulations extended the exemption for the burning of agricultural green waste until 1 March. It will then reopen for a final three-month period, from 1 September to 30 November, to allow the agricultural sector to deal with waste accumulated in the interim. The decision to extend this exemption for one final time arose from the recommendations made in that recent study. The study notes that a number of feasible alternatives are available for farmers to manage their waste material sustainably.
I thank the Minister of State for the clarity regarding the derogation. Do we have sight of what the proposals are and how they will be implemented? Will there be a cost implication for farmers arising from these methods? If so, how will farmers be supported in carrying out the disposal under the green measures the Minister of State is proposing?
The report of the study is available on the Department's website. We have asked the Irish BioEnergy Association to examine a range of measures, which could end up being very wide. In fact, on our own farm, we ended up pushing the material into a corner and leaving it there because there is evidence to suggest that sort of material and green waste will sit there and potentially provide a habitat for small birds and animals. Many farmers would like to do more on their farms, however, and that is just one example. From a bioenergy perspective, there could be options. The Deputy's point about this not costing the farmer further is good. Whatever suggestions we come up with should not prove costly for the farmer.
11. Deputy Colm Burke asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will provide an update on the latest developments regarding ACRES applications to date; when it is envisaged that ACRES applicants will be informed as to whether they have been accepted for the scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11237/23]
Will the Minister of State provide an update on the latest developments regarding ACRES applicants? When is it envisaged ACRES applicants will be informed as to whether they have been accepted into the scheme?
I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue. When the question was tabled, the matter to which it relates was topical for all farmers. Thankfully, we have had good progress since then, allowing me to give the Deputy a positive response.
ACRES, is the central agri-environment climate measure in Ireland’s Common Agricultural Policy Strategic Plan 2023-2027. It is a flagship agri-environmental scheme that will pay farmers €1.5 billion over its lifetime. ACRES will play a significant role in driving environmental improvements while also providing a crucial income support to farm families. It accounts for the largest sum ever committed to an agri-environment scheme.
As the Deputy may be aware, some 46,200 farmers applied for entry into the first tranche of ACRES. We were pleased last week to announce the acceptance of all valid applications received for the first tranche of the scheme. The formal approval letters are being posted out to successful applicants this week. An approval summary, which will show where actions have been mapped on participants' farms, will be posted to ACRES participants by the end of March with a copy of the farmland plant identification guide. This guide is a booklet developed by the Department to help farmers identify the indicator species on their land to be used in the scoring process.
Because it was initially intended 30,000 applications would be accepted for the first tranche of the scheme, the acceptance of all valid applications submitted under that tranche will present challenges, given both approaches within the scheme require the scoring of lands for results-based actions within a set period and the submission of the scores by a deadline to enable the making of advance payments in the fourth quarter of this year.
Given the significant level of interest among applicants in participating in the scheme at the earliest opportunity, I look forward to the focused efforts and co-operation from all involved to enable its smooth running. Subject to ACRES participants undertaking the actions in accordance with their ACRES contract and the scheme specifications, and submitting their claim for payment as part of their application for the basic income support for sustainability scheme, BISS, advance payments in respect of ACRES contracts are scheduled to issue in the fourth quarter of this year.
In respect of payments to issue in the fourth quarter of 2023, the Minister of State referred to set periods. After the initial payment, for what kind of period will farmers be required to deal with the scheme?
The advance payment is one feature of our payments system that we have managed to handle very well until now. It is a key component that farmers are used to but, obviously, a lot of pressure is being put on our system with that. Among the applications that have been submitted, I am not sure off the top of my head what the advance payment amounts to but we are going to get it in during the fourth quarter of the year. Getting that payment in early is important because the basic premise of the payments relates to costs incurred and income forgone, and farmers will incur costs this year by signing up to ACRES and we need to get that money back to them as quickly as can. We will try to get that payment to them in as timely a manner as possible.
In regard to the set period, that engagement will continue after the fourth quarter of this year. What kind of plan does the Department have for continuing that process after the fourth quarter?
The advance payment will be paid in the fourth quarter and the balance will be paid in early 2024. One point that is of key concern to farmers is that the decision letters are scheduled to issue from 8 March, yesterday. A certain number of applications were found to be invalid and a decision letter, notifying applicants of any rejections, giving the reason for the rejection and providing a facility for the decision to be reviewed, will be posted to those applicants. Farmers will have a certain number of days from the date of the approval letter to advise the Department as to whether they wish to proceed. It is all going to happen for farmers this week. Letters started to be posted yesterday and farmers will get that clarification. Unfortunately, a few are ineligible. They will be notified of that and the next steps will be outlined clearly for them.
This is very positive news. Farmers have demonstrated a great ambition to sign up in large numbers, more than was predicted by many people in the sector, for an agri-environmental scheme. I am delighted we have this challenge of dealing with a significant level of ambition for farmers to be part of this agri-environmental scheme, and I look forward to seeing a successful ACRES programme over the lifetime of the CAP.
13. Deputy Holly Cairns asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the steps he is taking to develop domestic and international markets for wool-based products such as insulation and fertilisers. [11631/23]
It is fair to say that despite a long tradition of wool produce in Ireland, the wool sector has been significantly underappreciated and undervalued in recent times. Instead of having a robust and innovative rural sector, low prices and other uncertainties and Government policies have negatively impacted on sheep farmers and the wool industry. I recognise the progress made with the feasibility report and the wool council, but what measures is the Minister of State putting in place to support the sector?
As the Deputy will be aware, despite wool's versatility and uses in many industries, wool prices remain low. To address this issue and seek a more favourable outlook for the wool industry, in March 2021, I initiated a comprehensive review of the industry. This review, which was a programme for Government commitment, concerned the potential demand for wool-based products, including insulation and fertilisers, in domestic and international markets. I set aside funding of €100,000 to carry out this review.
In July 2022, this programme for Government commitment was delivered with the publication of the wool review report. The report, which was compiled independently by the Agile Executive, contained a number of findings and recommendations including potential funding streams, market opportunities and multiple areas for additional research and development for wool. One of the main recommendations related to the establishment of an independent wool council, led by industry, that would develop and promote Irish wool domestically and internationally and bring together multiple stakeholders to foster collaboration, innovation and scaling activities in the wool sector.
It is envisaged that this council would be a forum where stakeholders can further examine and explore the potential uses for wool identified in the wool feasibility study.
In December 2022, a meeting of the stakeholders interested in forming a wool council took place. This group discussed their common aims, as well as agreeing to establish a working group to take the next steps in formally establishing the wool council. Officials from my Department also attended this meeting to outline the criteria needed to draw down the seed funding of €30,000, which I announced last July.
The next meeting of the wool council stakeholder group is set to take place in the coming weeks. At that meeting, the draft terms of reference will be presented and nominations for council officers will be sought. The establishment of the council is a vital step that will lead to new opportunities and greater returns for this natural sustainable product.
I thank the Minister of State. I acknowledge the progress that has been made in this area. There is a more positive outlook, but we still have a long way to go before wool can be a strong contributor to rural economies. Besides woolen products, there is considerable potential for its use in insulation, fertiliser, packing and horticulture.
Given its versatility and former abundance in Ireland, especially in the west, the current state of the sector is a clear sign of policies that are not working. However, last year's feasibility report highlights the many challenges involved in making these potential avenues viable. Can the Minister of State outline the progress that she and the wool council have made in meeting the report's short-term goals, especially around improved training and creating an apprenticeship model for the wool sector? Can she also outline the progress made in examining the establishment of a wool testing facility and a wool hub?
I accept the Deputy's acknowledgement of the progress that has been made. The council has only met formally once. At the next meeting, the terms of reference will be drawn up and council members will be appointed. I look forward to that and to assessing the progress that is being made.
The Deputy identified some of the findings of the wool feasibility study in the context of making use of wool. The list of those findings includes: brand development for Irish-grown wool; marketing of Irish-grown wool; the development of standards in respect of Irish-grown wool; determining the feasibility of establishing a wool-testing facility on the island of Ireland; and establishing wool hubs. These are still to be teased out. They will be necessary to strengthen this sector.
As the Deputy indicated, we have a history of wool production in Ireland. In light of the current climate, it is past time that we do what we can to support this sector and to see more wool being used. Wool production is sustainable, versatile and low carbon.
Farmers and their representative organisations recognise the importance of the wool council and the feasibility study. They have also warned that what is proposed needs to be supported and driven by the Government in conjunction with them. Action in respect of the various short-term goals is obviously crucial at this point. Will the Minister of State elaborate on the measures she is putting in place to support the develop of co-operatives? The feasibility study stresses that there is significant merit in the co-operative model because it creates commercial scale in capacity that individual farmers can achieve. It also facilitates more early-stage processing. The latter would give producers greater control. Producers would be best placed to develop and implement education and training opportunities as well.
The medium-to-long-term plan involves the establishment of wool co-operatives. This aspect will require considerable preparation. Has work in this regard already begun? Is the Minister of State engaging with existing co-operatives in order to obtain guidance?
There are a number of other Deputies who want to come in with supplementary questions
In view of the fact that I have tabled a similar question on this matter, I welcome the opportunity to come in. Everybody accepts that wool has the potential to be a valuable resource. It was certainly treated as a valuable resource in the past and there are many uses which it can be put to which it was put to in the past and also many exciting new uses, for example, around insulation. At the moment, it is a hindrance. It is a nuisance. It is almost valueless, as it stands, until the Minister of State's wool council proceeds with its work and until markets are developed.
Farmers just want to get sheep sheared at present. The wool is almost worthless to them and it is discarded. In order to ensure that sheep are sheared in a way that preserves wool in such a way that it can be utilised, surely certain measures will have to be put in place. I refer, for example, to the introduction of a contribution in respect of the cost of shearing. Are there any plans to do that? Are there any plans to make sure that wool is presented in an optimum way in order that it will retain whatever value it has?
I also tabled a question on this matter.
Galway Wool was set up by Ms Blatnaid Gallagher. That is an example of where there is huge potential in wool. As Deputy McNamara said, it is not so much that wool is almost useless at the moment, it is worse than useless because it costs more to shear a sheep than the price one gets for the wool. Back in the day, wool was a big source of income for a small family farm in the west of Ireland.
I applaud the fact that wool council is there but we need to create a sense of urgency. Even in the interim, with the way the sheep sector is going, there should be some support towards the cost of sheep shearing for farmers, particularly the way the input costs are. We spoke earlier about sheep farmers and their viability. It is important that we would do that. The Minister of State has my full support in respect of this matter.
I came from a committee meeting in order to come in briefly on this matter. It is something I have followed up on. It is now nearly three years since the Government committed to doing something in this area. A sum of €100,000 was made available for the feasibility study. The latter is concise in parts and unfocused in others. What is clear, however, is what was recommended, namely: the establishment of a wool council; training to be provided in respect of wool handling, presentation, sorting and grading; data collection; creation of an apprenticeship; and the establishment of wool co-operatives. I do not have time to go through it all. It was precise. There has been €100,000 spent. Another €30,000 was allocated for a wool council. Has that been drawn down? Who will drive this? Does the Minister of State envisage the wool council driving it? Does she envisage the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine having a primary role? I am of the view that it should have such a role. We need to turn this into the good news story that it is. Earlier, Deputy Carthy or one of the other Deputies raised the problem of farmers getting very little money. This is one area with significant possibilities, and that is the clearest point set out in the study.
It is clear that issue raises passions in people. I am a sheep farmer. I have farmed with my husband for 25 years. I know full well the challenges with trying to sell wool. I have seen prices dropping off over the past two and a half decades. I concur with all the concerns raised.
Ultimately, the market is just not there. We can jump the gun. We can establish co-operatives and all these things, and we can have our wool presented in a certain way. However, making sure there is a market is the aspect we have to get right. Interest, either domestically or internationally, in using wool is what we have to generate. That is the difficulty.
It is unfair to state that the Government has not done anything. We did what we said we would do. We established the study. We put €100,000 into that. We have put aside €30,000 in seed funding for the council. The council will drive it. We need the industry. We need the stakeholders involved on board with this to establish the best possible outcomes.
As an anecdotal point, although it will not save the world, there is a slight premium for organic wool as compared with non-organic wool at the moment. It is very small. There is a slight shift in terms of the funding.
I would make one final point on the welfare.
I thank the Minister of State. We are well over time.
There were four points. I am sorry, I am trying to address everyone's concerns.
Sheep shearing is a welfare issue. First and foremost, it is about the welfare of the sheep.
I have to move on.
The wool is a by-product, but we have to do what we can to secure a suitable price for it.
12. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine further to Parliamentary Question No. 181 of 8 December 2022, the status of the programme for Government commitment to ensure that inshore waters are protected for smaller fishing vessels and that pair trawling will be prohibited within the 6-mile nautical limit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11811/23]
My question is specific. I am looking for the status of the programme for Government commitment to ensure that inshore waters are protected for smaller fishing vessels. I ask this in the context of a policy that was readied in 2018. It is now 2023. In those years since, there has been a significant increase in the number of sprat caught. We need a drastic reduction in the annual sprat catch and that is not happening. The opposite is happening.
I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. The Department and I continue to work on the commitment set out in the programme for Government on the banning of pair trawling inside the 6-mile limit as a matter of priority.
In December 2018, following a public consultation process, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine announced that vessels over 18 metres would be excluded from trawling in inshore waters inside the six nautical mile zone and the baselines from 1 January 2020. I am committed to the sustainability of fishing in Irish waters and the exclusion of vessels over 18 metres from trawling in the waters inside six nautical miles is in line with the commitment made in the programme for Government.
As set out in the reply by the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, to Parliamentary Question No. 181 of 8 December 2022, the decision to exclude vessels over 18 metres from trawling inside six nautical miles has been the subject of legal proceedings. The matter remains before the Court of Appeal and a final judgment is awaited.
While the Court of Appeal issued an unapproved judgment on 19 July 2022, which was substantially in the State’s favour, it requested further submissions from both parties. Accordingly, it should be noted for the avoidance of doubt that the unapproved judgment of 19 July 2022 does not constitute the final judgment of the Court of Appeal. The case is still before the courts. My Department and the other party have lodged submissions and the final judgment is awaited.
Prior to the issuing of the court’s ruling, I am not in a position to apply the original policy of December 2018. We will, of course, implement the judgment of the Court of Appeal to the required extent as soon as it issues. As this matter continues to be sub judice, we are not in a position to comment further until this matter can be resolved before the courts.
It might be sub judice, and I more than anyone appreciate that, but I am not prevented from commenting on this. This policy was brought forward in 2018 and 2019 for a very good reason, which was to have sustainable fishing, help local fishermen and reduce the unsustainable number of sprat that were being caught. Now, we have a good news story.
The Minister of State is admitting and has set out that the judgment by the Court of Appeal in July, which was more than eight months ago, was substantially in favour of the Government. Can someone tell me why there is continuous delay? Has the importance of this issue and the unsustainable continuation of the numbers of sprat being taken out of inshore waters not been pointed out to the courts? How come no case has been made? How come there was no stay? There was a stay for a little while and then it was taken.
The amount of sprat caught increased significantly between 2018, which was the year the Government was bringing in the policy, and 2019, right up to the present day. I do not have time to read out the figures. I will come back for my second round.
I accept the passion the Deputy has for this topic. In answer to the specific question she put down, I am happy to state very clearly that it is still our intention to implement the programme for Government commitment in this regard. Obviously, I am not going to comment on the legal case before the courts or the length of time that matter is taking. I can give the Deputy the reassurance, however, that it is our intention to go ahead and implement that programme for Government decision pending the result of the court case being in the State's favour and, if it is not, we will obviously comply with whatever is the court's decision.
I would like to take the Minister of State's assurances on a personal basis, but I cannot in view of what has happened since 2018 and 2019. It has gone through the courts. The people who took the case lost the case. The Minister of State admitted that the judgment was substantially in favour of the Government. We have to have some outline of what is going to happen when the Government gets the final judgment. We must have some explanation for how there was no stay on the order for the period of time given the importance of this to the environment and sustainability and to local fishermen. What happened that there was a stay for a little and then the stay was lifted? It was open season for the big ships to go in and take the sprat in an unsustainable manner.
This has been set out by experts, not by me; I am only quoting what I have read. I am extremely worried at the constant delays. As I said, that judgment was given on 19 July in favour of the Government except in relation to a specific issue about Northern Ireland. I do not know how that could influence the Government's policy. Surely, the Government now has something ready to run again if the full and approved judgment were to be given tomorrow.
The Deputy will understand that it is not possible for me to pre-empt the court decision. However, I will state very clearly that I take on board the concerns raised by the Deputy. Prior to the issuing of the court's ruling, however, we are not in a position to apply the original policy of December 2018 because it is before the courts. We look forward to the decision.
The Deputy expressed concern as to how the case has developed. We have a Court of Appeal for good reason; it is so that people can appeal decisions. We are in the hands of the courts on that one. We stand ready to act once the Court of Appeal makes its final decision, however.
15. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if his Department is working on any plans to streamline form-filling for farmers on family farms as multiple State and EU agencies often ask for the same information many times each year; if GDPR is an issue in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11470/23]
Is the Minister of State's Department working on any means to streamline form-filling and beyond that, the interactions between farmers and those many agencies? We all get the necessity regarding whether it is an application for schemes or to deal with regulations and all the rest of it. There may be issues regarding the GDPR. At a recent meeting, however, the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, brought this up as a significant issue. There are more issues beyond that, obviously.
I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. I know form-filling and all the rest is a constant source of frustration. I will put on the record of the House, as I have done previously, that I am a farmer. I come from a farming background. My wife and I still have an active farm in south Kildare. It is frustrating that this is happening.
Maybe I came come into this role of Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine with a farmer's view of red tape and bureaucracy. When we look at the amount of EU funding we are receiving, however, we have to be able as a country to account for that, as do other countries across Europe. If we are found in audits by the EU not to have administered it appropriately according to the schemes, we can be subject to very significant disallowances and fines. I have come to understand very quickly that there is a significant need here. Therefore, we do not look to develop or make things any more complex than they need to be. There is a requirement that we must stand over the administering of the EU money, however, which is significantly important to our farmers and to the rural communities in which they are based.
As Minister of State with responsibility for farm safety, I get the stresses and strains on farmers at this particular time of year. It is a very busy time on farms with all the different activity from calving to lambing. This is also true for the tillage sector with the price of inputs, the weather and all those different concerns like whether the fodder will last before farmers get out onto the grass and how early they can get that grass. Mixed in with all that is the paperwork and that causes a lot of stress and strain. Much of this paperwork is necessary across our daily lives, however. We try to keep the level of work to a minimum so as not to burden farmers. As I outlined, however, necessary paperwork is a requirement of many of the schemes and programmes.
One of the key performance indicators of my Department's information management and technology, IMT, statement of strategy is the number of services offered digitally, such as form-filling. These digital services will inter alia have pre-filled customer details as a default for all new digital forms. They will, therefore, recognise that the farmer has been there before. That will take away the need to ask farmers for the same information many times over. There is much streamlining in our online systems as well.
I imagined the Minister of State was going to bring in his own personal experience. I imagine he has heard this multiple times from farmers. I know there will be some people who will have an issue with digital services. When we talk about the IFA and active farmers, one of the difficulties is obviously the age profile. A significant amount of them are older. Now, many have gotten to grips with this. Having pre-filled forms and all the rest will obviously be an advantage. Many farmers sometimes talk about the same information and almost the same checks being done, with a bit of giving out and grumbling regarding whether they are talking about the Department or Bord Bia or whatever else. Any room there is with regard to streamlining needs to be looked at. I welcome what the Minister of State said about pre-filled forms. That is absolutely necessary. There is no point in asking people for the same information multiple times.
I am going to ask for a bit of leeway. Another issue that was brought up was with regard to the nitrates directive and land usage----
I cannot give leeway for another question; we do not have time. The Deputy will have an extra minute.
No, it is about land usage. I would appreciate if the Minister of State could go into that.
It will come up in the next one. I will answer it if I can. I answered a question earlier about when the Department had to introduce mandatory online form filling. Many people made the point that the average age of our farmers is 57 or higher. We have so many farmers in their 70s trying to navigate an IT system. There was huge concern that we would not be able to manage that. People underestimated the resilience and capabilities of farmers in conjunction with their advisers and family members. Great credit is also due to the officials in the Department.
In the response to an earlier question on the system, I outlined that it appeared certain farmers had not filled out the ANC application properly. The Department went to some lengths to assist them. We wrote to them, we had pop-ups on-screen to say that the applicant was potentially making a mistake, and we also rang farmers. Following those phone calls, an extra 150 farmers amended their single farm payment application for that year to make sure they had it right. With that there are opportunities in the online system. Farmers have proven themselves adept at it. The recording of information in the system, and us being able to identify in real time where farmers are at, is a help in some ways.
That is all very positive. The best thing I can do in relation to this is to look for a written submission on where they believe further streamlining can be done. I would like to think the Minister of State, Deputy Heydon, the senior Minister and the Department would be willing to look at this, where it is possible. That is accepting there are people who have huge issues around some of the barriers. I was at the recent AGM of the Louth IFA. Tim Cullinan was there and he said that we must be clear that even if these regulations were not coming, the outside market would require some of them. That is the trajectory we are on. In fairness to the IFA, there is an acceptance of that among many farmers. I will put the question again to the Minister of State about farmers' worries about land use, the nitrates directive, and what the possibilities are, while accepting that we all need to ensure cleaner water as well as other things.
As I said, there is an opportunity in the online form filling element for farmers and for us. I will give the Deputy a very clear commitment here. We constantly review how our systems work. This will be a really challenging year. The first year of a new CAP scheme, with all of the new IT systems, is very challenging for us. If we see a trend of a significant number of farmers all making the same mistake, we will amend, fix and intervene. I assure the Deputy that we constantly review this. We want farmers to be able to access the funds to which they are entitled and so on.
I could do with a lot more time to discuss the nitrates directive, but I will make one point. Farmers talk to us about the 250 kg limit as being their starting point. It is not. Our starting point is a 170 kg limit. We are very lucky in this country to be one of four countries that has this derogation, which is the rule that means we can operate at that higher nitrates level. There are conditions with that and one of the main conditions is that we cannot have a decline in water quality. Our water quality in Ireland is good by European standards but the trend in certain areas is declining. We will lose our derogation. Other European Union countries would give their right arm for that derogation. We know how important it is to the 7,000 farmers who avail of it in this country, so we are doing everything to maintain it. We do not want to make it any more difficult for farmers than it needs to be but we must see an improvement in our water quality. That is a key part of the whole derogation.
16. Deputy Martin Browne asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if Coillte will be able to avail of grants and premia under his proposed new forestry programme; and if he intends to issue a new shareholder letter of expectations to Coillte in 2023. [11935/23]
Have the Minister of State or the Minister sought clarity from the Commission as to whether Coillte will be able to avail of grants and premia? Has the Minister obtained any independent legal advice about the matter? Will Coillte be able to avail of grants and premia under the revised state aid rules? If so, will this be provided for under the new forestry programme?
I thank Deputy Browne for the question. Historically, afforestation premia were provided for under European Council regulation 2080/92 and were available to both farmers and non-farmers. Lower maximum rates applied in the case of non-farmers. Within this regulation, non-farmers were defined as any other private, natural or legal person. I draw the Deputy's attention to the landmark 2003 ECJ judgment for case No. 339-00 where it was held that, "such an entity, [Coillte Teoranta] as a public undertaking is not eligible to receive aid to compensate for a loss of income arising from afforestation".
Ireland’s current afforestation premia are offered under the guidelines for state aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas. These guidelines were revised last year and the updated guidelines have now come into effect from the 1 January 2023. Those revised guidelines, under section 2.1.1 - aid for afforestation and creation of woodland - and section 2.3 - aid for forest-environment and climate services and forest conservation - now include the possibility of public landowners to avail as beneficiaries without restrictions. My Department is currently seeking legal advice on this matter and due consideration will then be given to its application under the forestry programme.
The code of practice for the governance of State bodies requires that Government Departments should ensure they have written oversight agreements with State bodies under their aegis that clearly define the terms of the State body’s relationship with the relevant Minister and parent Department. For commercial State bodies the oversight agreement between the relevant Minister and parent Department and the State body is the shareholder expectation letter. A shareholder letter of expectation issued to Coillte on 2 June 2022. It is published on my Department's website and available at gov.ie. Any decision as to the timing and the content of the next shareholder letter of expectation needs to be discussed and agreed with the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform as co-shareholder in Coillte.
It has been raised numerous times with the Minister of State, Senator Hackett, that the issue of state aid and Coillte was a matter that should have been addressed when state aid was being revised, and not after it happened. The Department knew negotiations with Gresham House were taking place and at that time it was looking for the alternative way to benefit from the state aid. Why then did the Minister of State and the other Minister at that time not seek clarity about the potential beneficiaries under the draft revisions before the Gresham House deal was signed off, and before state aid rules were published in December 2022? The Minister of State is again dragging her heels on revising it now when the deal is closed. Why was it not done before that deal was closed?
I thank the Deputy. It is not really a matter of the Department revising anything in relation to the state aid rules. We had to wait until 1 January when the guidelines had come into effect. It looks like public landowners may be able to avail as beneficiaries, without restrictions, of these state aids. Again, we are seeking legal advice on this issue. I understand the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine had a positive and thorough engagement with Coillte last Wednesday, where part of this was discussed. In that, it was highlighted that Coillte had engaged with the Commission in 2019 in relation to any issues around state aid. It was clearly told "No" at that stage. It is welcome now in 2023 that we might well be able to support Coillte to afforest.
I thank the Minister of State. We had a meeting with Coillte last week, and believe me it was not as clear cut as the Minister of State is telling us here. It was like drawing teeth trying to get answers out of some of them. If the wording of the revised state aid was such that the Department has since felt compelled to seek clarity from the Commission, will the Minister of State tell us if revisions around the potential beneficiaries of the afforestation grants and the premia under the revised state aid rules were entirely different to the provisions included in a draft on state aid rules received in January of last year?
Will the Minister of State give us clarity on when the Minister expects a response to his request for clarity from the Commission, and his request for legal advice on the matter? Depending on the advice the Minister gets, is the Department prepared to issue a new statement of expectations to Coillte that the Department does not want to engage in this type of investment? The Minister said it is not his preferred type of deal. Is the Minister of State prepared to look for that legal advice and to make it quite clear to the likes of Coillte that this is a once-off deal?
I reassure the Deputy that my Department is currently in the process of seeking that legal advice on this matter. Certainly, due consideration will be given to its application under the next forestry programme.
With regard to a reissue of a shareholder letter of expectation, that is an issue we will consider, but we must discuss that and agree that with the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, who is the other shareholder in Coillte. Legal advice is being sought and when we get that we will sit down and discuss it further.
As we have one minute on the clock perhaps Deputy Crowe would like to put his question very quickly and we can get a very quick response from the Minister of State.
17. Deputy Cathal Crowe asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will provide additional information on proposals for rewetting lands that have heretofore been drained; and how this might be rolled out in a county like Clare. [11441/23]
This question relates to rewetting of bogs and what it might look like in a county such as Clare. There is huge concern because we are hearing it is proposed that up to 90% of drained organic soils would be rewetted, reducing livestock production by 30%, with 875,000 ha brought back into forestry. Overall, this could result in 20% of the State's land being taken out of production, which is a huge concern for rural Ireland. I ask the Minister of State to give some clarity on what is intended.
I remind the Minister of State that we have only 30 seconds remaining on the clock.
The Government's ultimate aim is to help to deliver long-term sustainability in the farming sector.
Regarding the proposed rewetting targets in the proposal on EU nature restoration, sectors such as agriculture and forestry will be central to the successful achievement of those objectives. However, we are still continuing to work on those and the details are not thoroughly clear yet. I acknowledge the concerns that are out there, although there is a bit of scaremongering going on, which is unnecessary. We need to work closely with farmers to come up with the best possible solutions to deliver for nature and for farmers.
