Vol. 1036 No. 7
80. Deputy Claire Kerrane asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he intends to provide financial supports for the sheep sector from the Brexit adjustment reserve; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18491/23]
Does the Minister intend to introduce an emergency package of financial supports for the sheep sector. He will be aware, as we all are, that sheep farmers have been calling out for supports for some time now and they have not been forthcoming. Is there an opportunity to seek emergency funding from the Brexit adjustment reserve?
First, I offer my best wishes and congratulations to Deputy Kerrane on her appointment as Sinn Féin spokesperson on agriculture and food. I wish her well and look forward to working with her. If she requires any information my Department can provide, she should feel free to ask. I wish her well. I know she will enjoy the role and is well-suited to it. It was also good to work with Deputy Carthy and I wish him well in his new role.
A vibrant sheep sector is an important aspect of our farming economy. It is important for ensuring a balanced regional economy. Many of our parishes and farming families depend on it. Although there has been a solid and sustained increase in average sheep prices since the end of February, I recognise that sheep farmers are experiencing more difficult market conditions in 2023 than in previous years. However, as we know market prices are a commercial matter that we cannot directly impact or influence. Thankfully in the past week in particular, we have seen a good lift in the price of hoggets of about 60 cent in some cases, which has been welcome. We have seen hoggets crossing €7 per kg and spring lamb going over the €8 per kg mark, which is welcome and much needed by farmers.
As Minister, I have worked hard and continue to do so to try to ensure the sector is supported through the various schemes we have in place. The new Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, programme which started this year particularly benefits the sheep sector. For example the front-loading and convergence and especially the decision to accommodate all applicants to the agri-climate rural environment scheme, ACRES, is particularly beneficial to the sheep sector. The €12 per ewe sheep improvement scheme has also been heavily subscribed. From the point of view of sheep farmers, with regard to costs, a €1,000 maximum per farm family was introduced to address the increased fodder costs. I continue to monitor the market closely and, as with any sector, I am always open to ideas and proposals around the Brexit adjustment reserve. It is difficult to meet the technical specifications to qualify, but I am always open to proposals.
I thank the Minister for his kind wishes. I appreciate them and I too look forward to working constructively with him and the Minister of State, Senator Hackett.
Of course, the importance of the sector is well-known and that is always the first line. It is important and we should acknowledge it. However, the sector is under huge pressure. It has been seven weeks since the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association, ICSA, held a protest outside the House. I met sheep farmers that day who told me they are to the wall and they are still waiting seven weeks later.
The question being posed relates to the fact that there is a fund there. I understand it is difficult to meet the criteria for that fund and to draw it down, but it has been done. We know that other sectors and processors have been able to avail of funding under it and it begs the question why the sheep sector cannot. There has been a loss of income, albeit I accept that prices have increased recently and that is welcome. The sector has had huge increases in input costs. There is a crisis in the wool sector for farmers. It is more expensive to shear sheep than the price farmers will get for the wool and the impact of Brexit is clear. Will the Minister go to the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform to seek funding under this fund?
As the Deputy will be aware, the Brexit adjustment reserve is an important source but it is difficult to qualify for it. We have to show a direct correlation between what is being funded and the impacts of Brexit. I have not received any proposal which would stack up in that regard.
As with all sectors of agriculture, I have asked my Department and officials to consider how we could potentially draw down Brexit funding. It does not appear to be possible in this instance. Since six or seven weeks ago, we have thankfully seen a significant change in the market conditions for sheep. There is no doubt that during last winter store finishers were not making money. The winter store trade can be up and down year to year and certainly last year was a challenging one. We are in a better situation now. Prices are stronger and lambs will be finished off grass in the weeks and months ahead. I will continue to monitor the market situation closely while delivering, in every way I can, supports to underpin family farm income for the sheep sector through the CAP and the new sheep improvement scheme. Most importantly and significantly, every sheep farm that has applied to ACRES has been accepted, which could potentially be worth up to €7,000 per sheep farm this year.
Some of those schemes, such as ACRES, are welcome and will make some difference. However, they are more focused on the environment as opposed to production. The fact of the matter is that monitoring is not good enough at this point when sheep farmers are telling the Minister that they are in crisis and the sector is in crisis. The clear impact of Brexit is there. If the Minister looks at the trade deals that have been done by England with New Zealand and Australia, he will see they are both big sheep-producing countries. They have the potential to undermine our sheep sector. Sheep farmers are worried about that. Will the Minister confirm in his response whether he has asked his Department officials to look at this? Is it the case they have looked at it as regards the Brexit fund and it is not possible?
Can the Minister say categorically that it has been investigated and is not possible, or is it the case that it will be investigated? Will the Minister clarify that?
In terms of the Brexit adjustment reserve, other funding and annual negotiations around budget, I want to draw down and pull in every bit of funding I possibly can across all segments, and not just the sheep sector, to support and enhance farm family income. Every opportunity has been assessed for the sheep and other sectors and we continue to do that. We fully assess any new ideas that may work but it is difficult to stack it up. If Deputy Kerrane has a proposal, I am open to it. I have also said to the farm organisations that if they see an innovative way to do it in the sheep sector or any other sector, I am open to it. We have investigated it in detail in the Department. My officials assess it at all times and go through the Brexit adjustment reserve capacity to see where it might be delivered. If the Deputy has a particular thought on the matter I will consider it but so far, all of the assessments are that there is no way to make it stick with the Brexit adjustment reserve. Regarding the CAP funding, the ACRES decision, in particular, is significant for sheep farmers. I am conscious that this can deliver significant income for sheep family farmers this year.
81. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine how the current system of allocating the Irish public quota of fish species such as mackerel, herring and spurdog to the Irish fishing fleet is compliant with the principles of Article 17 of the Common Fisheries Policy; and if he will outline his future plans in this regard. [18343/23]
I ask the Minister to meet his responsibilities under Article 17 of the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP. There are representations to the Minister from the National Inshore Fishermen's Association, the Irish Islands Marine Resource Organisation and environmental organisations asking him to examine how quotas, which are a public resource in Ireland, are allocated and how he is going to pull all of the organisations together to discuss and negotiate this issue.
I strongly support the inshore sector. It is important and needs support, which is why I announced yesterday a new scheme that will deliver between €2,700 and €4,000 to all inshore boats this year to help to underpin income and to reflect how the Government values the sector and wants to support it in terms of income and some of the challenges it is experiencing.
Regarding the Deputy's question around quotas, fishing quotas are a public resource in this country and are managed to ensure property rights are not granted to individual operators and they remain a national resource. When a quota allocation is not fished by an individual operator, it is returned to the State for redistribution to the fleet. This is important to ensure that quotas are not concentrated in the hands of large fishing companies whose owners have the financial means to buy up such rights, which would happen in that circumstance. This approach helps to support a fishing fleet based around our coastline and a fleet made up of various sizes and types of fishing vessels. Any movement towards privatisation of fishing rights would seriously risk fishing vessels, losing an economic link with our coastal communities. I work closely with the fishing industry to ensure that does not happen.
At national level, stakeholders play an important role in fish quota management through the quota management advisory committee, which is a consultative committee that meets monthly. It involves my Department and, importantly, all fishing industry representatives from the catching, inshore and processing sectors. The purpose of the committee is to make recommendations to me for particular stocks. I follow these recommendations for regimes for those stocks, subject to the proper management and rational exploitation of our fisheries in line with national policy. The committee examines the operation of each fishery's uptake patterns and available quota for the different groups of fishing vessels. Discussions on any allocations take into account the divergent situation of the fleet and the market and any weather conditions upcoming that could impact vessels.
I have two points. The inshore sector has been denied access to traditional salmon fisheries for quite a while and has been asked to make a living almost entirely from crab and lobster fisheries. It has been struggling. There is talk that a quota may be introduced around the area of crab. I am aware that studies by the Marine Institute are ongoing. The inshore sector needs a reasonable share of the likes of mackerel, herring and spurdog. I am also conscious that the pelagic industry in Ireland suffered a serious hit from Brexit. I ask the Minister to do two things: first, to renew his commitment to working with the industry to fight for our fair share of fish in our waters and, second, to make sure all our fishermen get an equal and fair opportunity to access those fish when they are secured.
I am doing that and will do that. I will always redouble efforts in that regard because fish and the volume of fish are the most important resources for the sustainability of our fishing sector and the families who depend on it. At European level, I always fight and take every possible opportunity to try to increase and improve our position regarding quotas. Most recently for blue whiting, a pelagic species, we got a good outcome along with an improved outcome concerning the allocation of blue whiting nationally and further restricting the access arrangements for outside, non-EU countries, particularly Norway, to the north-west region and the Irish conservation box. There was also a good outcome at the recent Council meeting in December for spurdog. For the first time in many years, there is now a spurdog fishery, which is important for the inshore sector. To try to get a result on that was probably the number one thing asked of me over the last few years and it is something we hope to build on. After many years of conservation measures for the north-west herring stock, there is now a quota for that as well. Inside the sector, everybody has a different view and everybody wants a bigger slice of the cake. I work with the sector to try to be as fair as possible and consult as closely as possible in making decisions.
The Minister may be surprised to hear that I welcome the change in approach on the part of some of his Department officials and his efforts to work with the industry around the blue whiting issue. The industry united and put in a tremendous effort. It was constantly out in Europe making the case for more fish and for fairness. I went to some of those meetings; it is asking for fairness. That is it. It is asking for the principles of the CFP to be respected. I ask the Minister to continue to fight with the industry as a united industry and to make sure he strikes a fair balance between the asks of the inshore sector and those of the larger fleet. It is about pulling them together and having a straight conversation around all of those issues. Right now, the allocation of mackerel and herring - we will see what happens with spurdog - to the inshore sector is not enough and it is not fair. One cannot stand over it. It is a public resource and the Minister has a responsibility to ensure he chairs and referees discussions and makes sure that what happens and what is left over is fair. If he wants to unite the industry, as we all do, the best way to do that is to be fair to everybody in the industry.
There has not been a change of approach from me. I have been consistent from the start in relation to working closely with all fishery representatives to try to get the best outcome possible at European level. No doubt, the last effort was a strong one and everyone worked closely together but we also did that previously. For blue whiting, for example, before I became Minister, the normal transfer rate and the previous year's transfer rate to Norway was 9% of the EU blue whiting quota. Three years ago, in my first negotiation, I got that down to 4% and I have held it at 4% every year since, including this year. There has also been additional improvement in access arrangements. Working with industry has been important in that regard. All of us pushing the same boat is the way to go and achieves the best results possible.
On the north-west herring fishery, I recently launched a consultation to investigate reviewing it, particularly with the inshore sector. It is out for consultation at the moment. With spurdog and mackerel, it is about trying to be as fair as possible, which is my objective, and I know it is the Deputy's objective too.
82. Deputy Holly Cairns asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the actions he is taking to prohibit pair trawling inside the six-mile limit. [18344/23]
I am regularly contacted by residents in west Cork concerned about trawling in Bantry Bay and Kenmare Bay. I have to explain to them that this is permitted even though it is in the programme for Government. We know it is legally sound.
Since the court ruling in October 2020 overturned the policy directive, I have repeatedly asked the Minister to resolve the issue by bringing the directive process into place again. Two and a half years later, when will he do that?
I continue to work on the commitment set out in the programme for Government to:
Ensure that inshore waters continue to be protected for smaller fishing vessels and recreational fishers and that pair trawling will be prohibited inside the six-mile limit.
That is a programme for Government commitment on which I am determined to follow through.
As the Deputy said, in December 2018 the then Minister, Deputy Creed, announced that vessels over 18 m would be excluded from trawling in inshore waters inside the six-nautical-mile zone from 1 January 2020. There was a transition period of three years for vessels over 18 m targeting sprat to allow adjustment for those who had previously been carrying out that fishing activity. A policy directive was then issued by the Minister to the independent licensing authority to give effect to those measures.
I am committed to the sustainability of fishing in Irish waters and the exclusion of vessels over 18 m from trawling in waters inside the six-nautical-mile zone. As the Deputy will know, in respect of the decision to exclude vessels over 18 m from inside the six-nautical-mile zone, a court case, involving legal proceedings to the High Court, was taken by two applicant fishermen. That challenge was upheld by the judge, who held in summary that the court's final order should be, among other matters, a declaration that policy directive 1 of 2019 was made in breach of fair procedures and is void. I appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal and we received the unapproved judgment in July of last year, and only on 10 March past we got the final judgment.
What is happening now is that my team is assessing the outcome and the full details of that final judgment. It is a programme for Government commitment to exclude larger vessels from inside the six-nautical-mile zone, and that is something I will now step out. I could not do anything about it until 10 March, when we got the final judgment back. Were we to reinstate that now, the required legal process would have to be gone through to take it forward again.
When the Minister says his team now has to assess the situation, I am not really sure what needs to be assessed at this point. He says he is committed to banning this, but the issue remains that inshore trawling is currently permitted and will be for some time until the Minister resolves the matter. The Government says constantly that it is committed to banning this activity. Inshore fishers support such a ban, as do marine and tourism businesses, coastal communities and environmentalists. Why is the Minister not acting more quickly? I appreciate that the legal proceedings took time, but he has been seemingly making no provisions in the meantime. Now he is only assessing the matter. Where is the urgency? At each stage we get the same standard response that the Department is considering the rulings. Two and a half years later, what is the plan? The Minister's team is assessing the matter. He knew that the final ruling was coming. The court identified the Department's failure to properly inform the UK and the EU about the directive, which is a separate matter, but, importantly, the court has found that the policy is legally sound. There is no issue with the policy. It was on a technicality that it was overruled. What, then, is the Minister assessing? What is the delay? When will he proceed?
That is a very unfair presentation and not representative of the situation at all. It is just over a month since the final judgment was returned-----
But the Minister knew for two years that that ruling was coming.
-----so it simply was not possible to do anything until we got the final judgment. Is it now four years since the whole process started? We have to make sure any step we take now meets any legal challenges and is fully robust. The team has fully assessed the previous judgment. We are now working on assessing this judgment. We have had it only a month. We will step it out. My commitment and this Government's commitment, our programme for Government commitment, is resolute. It is one of the things to which we all committed when we went to this side of the House. We are very committed to the inshore sector. We are very committed to protecting the area inside the six-nautical-mile zone for the inshore sector. The Deputy's presentation of the matter is not fair at all because everything that can be done will be done as quickly as possible by me and the team now to step this out.
Respectfully, the Minister has had a month to act but he has had two years to assess or to plan or whatever he is saying the Department is doing now. I thank him for the reply but, in essence, it is the same kind of holding response I have got for two years at this stage. Will he just confirm that he will begin the process to establish the policy directive, and when will that be? What steps is he taking this time to ensure the Department does this correctly so we do not end up in the same position again?
I have previously raised the possibility of using existing instruments to curtail inshore trawling in the meantime. I highlighted the issue of a Bantry Bay by-law that prohibits trawling. That could be used at least to help to address the issue in one section of our coast. Even that would have an enormous benefit for stocks and other environmental issues. However, in reply to the parliamentary question on this that I tabled a few weeks ago, the Minister gave me a one-sentence response. He said:
I thank the Deputy for their question, and I wish to advise the Deputy that harbour bye-laws for Bantry Bay are a matter for the local port authority.
Respectfully, that is just not the answer of somebody who is taking this matter seriously.
Well, that is just a statement of fact and an obvious response to the question the Deputy asked.
Exactly. We already know that.
There is no point in Deputy Cairns chiding me for her having received a holding response over the past two years. I cannot believe how she would expect to get anything other than a holding response for the past two years, given that the matter was being considered by the courts. It is only a month ago that we received the final judgment from the courts. Until then, any response the Deputy would have got would have been the same, that is, that we were waiting for the final judgment and were not in a position to do anything until we got it. That is the only response the Deputy could have got and the only response she could have expected to have got over those two years.
Now I would like a different response.
Yes, but there is no point in chiding me for having got a holding response for that period because the Deputy would have fully expected that and would have known the answer before asking the question. Now I plan to step this forward urgently. We are now fully assessing the legal situation around that, and I will promptly move forward with this Government's total commitment to backing the inshore sector and protecting the area inside the six-nautical-mile zone for the inshore sector. We will step that out as quickly as possible, making sure that we get a successful outcome to what it is we want to achieve.
83. Deputy Claire Kerrane asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will outline how his Department will operate the announced satellite inspections for the basic income support for sustainability and areas of natural constraint schemes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18628/23]
We know there are numerous changes coming to farm schemes this year. One of them, which has been described as the biggest one by the Minister's Department, is the change to the satellite inspections and how that will work with the new mandatory area monitoring system. Might the Minister be able to tell us a little more about how he sees that working and, particularly, the impact it will have for farmers on the ground and how they will have to engage with the new system?
As Deputy Kerrane pointed out, the new Common Agricultural Policy regulations provide for the compulsory use of the area monitoring system, AMS, in member states from 1 January of this year to monitor farming activity in respect of the new basic income support scheme and the areas of natural constraint, ANC, scheme. The use of satellite data to carry out checks is not new, as we know; it has been part of the Department's inspection programme now for over 15 years. Checks by monitoring were successfully introduced in 2021 for the protein aid scheme, whereby satellite data were used to verify protein crops for all applicants' declared parcels.
The AMS can be described as the regular and systematic observation, tracking and assessment of agricultural activities and practices on agricultural areas using what is known as Copernicus Sentinel satellite data or other data with at least equivalent value. The data will then be complemented with geotagged photographs sent in by farmers or advisers using the AgriSnap mobile phone app, if requested by my Department, as well as follow-up checks on the ground by an inspector if needed. My Department will provide up to 48 hours' notice to farmers where a ground visit is required.
For 2023, the AMS will be used to monitor basic income support, ANC protein aid and the straw incorporation measure. The AMS will interpret satellite imagery to provide the data to help the Department to make informed decisions on agricultural activity on declared land parcels, of which there are approximately 1.3 million in the country. This will be done automatically through the use of computer algorithms and will run continuously throughout the year.
Under the previous control system using on-the-spot inspections, only a small sample of farmers were selected for eligibility inspections, usually about 5%. Under the AMS now, all agricultural parcels will be subject to the monitoring process. Parcels monitored by the AMS will have colour-coded results when presented to scheme applicants: green, yellow or red. Parcels flagged by the AMS system as green or yellow will be paid on. Parcels where a potential non-compliance is detected will have a red status.
Thank you, Minister.
I will fill the Deputy in further on that in my follow-up.
It is really important that we put the details of how this is going to work out there. Geotagging, photos and apps for uploading photographs will be a minefield for a certain percentage of farmers. I understand the texts will go out to farmers from June. In some cases, farmers will get a text message from the Department to say they are in the red. Then they will have to go about getting the photograph uploaded. It is important that as much information as possible is put out there because that is going to pose difficulty for some farmers. It will be particularly problematic for hill farmers in respect of how the satellite will work and the geotagging. Even something as simple as broadband for uploading to an app could be problematic.
Along with all of the other changes that will come in, another outworking is the delay to the payment dates for this year for the basic income support for sustainability, BISS, scheme and the ANCs. That delay has been confirmed. When will those payments to farmers will be made? I presume they are a result of all the changes that are coming.
I agree with the Deputy on the importance of communicating this. I was about to highlight what would happen in the case of a red status. A red status might flag up the presence of an ineligible feature such as a house, farm or roadway. It might indicate a discrepancy in the category of agricultural area, whether it is arable land, permanent crop or permanent grassland. For example, spring barley might be declared on the application, but grassland might be identified on the AMS.
The introduction of the AMS is a significant change but there are also a number of benefits. There will be a significant reduction in the number of on-farm inspections. Farmers will also get notifications of potential errors. They will have opportunities to rectify these errors. This will lead to a reduction in the number of potential penalties. We are putting great effort into getting the message out to farmers and advisors so that they know what to expect in 2023. We will work collectively with farmers to ensure the transition is as smooth as possible. There is a lot of work ongoing. The Deputy is absolutely right about its importance. On payments, every effort is being made to deliver them in the tightest timeframe possible this year.
I understand with the satellite mapping and the changes that are coming in that there will be an element of wait and see. It will be a new system for farmers and some will find it difficult in the context of the level of technology that is coming into farming anyway. Uploading photographs and all that is going to pose problems for some farmers. That is one element. Second and most important of all is the worry and fear for farmers about payment dates for this year. While they will understand and appreciate that there are new changes coming in the schemes for this year - everyone understands that - it is important that concerted pressure is put on the Department to make sure everything possible is done to make these payments at the time they are usually paid. Farmers have loans, money owed to banks, massive input costs and now more than ever they have significant costs. It is important that those payments are made on time. Everything that the Department can do needs to be done to make sure we are not seeing delays of three or four weeks to farmers getting payments that they desperately need and rely on.
It is a massive logistical challenge in the first year of a CAP. All the schemes are new, the IT system is new, it is a challenge for farmers getting up and running on it and it is also a massive logistical and organisational challenge for the Department to open all the new schemes, have them running and get the payments done. Once we get the first year over and we are into the second or third year, we will have a bit more scope to operate. It is much more difficult in the first year. That is why there has been some adjustment to the payment dates this year. It is the best we can do. We have squeezed it, pulled it and looked to do everything we could within the Department to make sure everything is done in the tightest timeframe possible. We will be one of the few member states, if not the only member state, that will deliver all these payments this year. In most other countries that are introducing a CAP programme this year, it will be next year before a lot of their payments are made. We want to deliver them all this year but it does mean that some of the payments will be a couple of weeks later than they would have been in previous years. That is the best possible timeframe we can deliver on. We have taken that decision early so we can communicate to farmers and they can prepare and know what to expect as the year goes on.
