I formally move the matter raised by Senator Ó Domhnaill.
Adjournment Matters
Rural Development Programme Funding
In late 2011, the European Commission approved a change in the maximum co-funding rate from 55% to 85% for axes 3 and 4 elements of Ireland's rural development programme 2007-2013. Prior to this, the axes 3 and 4 rural development programme, RDP, measures were co-funded at a rate of 55% by the EU with the remaining 45% coming from national Exchequer sources. The 2011 agreement reduced the national Exchequer input to 15% on a net basis for 2012 and 2013 without a concomitant increase in the amount of funding to be provided by the EU. This resulted in a reduction in the overall programme complement from €427 million to approximately €314 million on the basis of the programme achieving full spend by the end of 2013.
In this context the original project allocations given to each local development company, LDC, contracted to deliver the Leader elements of the RDP, including the allocation for Gaeltacht areas, required readjustment. The Department is currently carrying out an exercise to determine the level of project commitments across all LDCs and all RDP measures to complete the rebalancing of the programme in as equitable a way as possible. In addition, given the levels of spending by the LDCs from 2009 to date, it is highly unlikely that full spend will be achieved by the end of 2013. The co-funding rate will revert to 55% for all expenditure beyond the end of this year and as a consequence, the overall programme requirement will also change. Until such time as the rebalancing exercise as outlined has been satisfactorily completed, it is not possible to be definitive regarding amounts of funding available for project commitments under axes 3 and 4 of the RDP. I do, however, expect this exercise to be completed shortly.
Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta, the LDC contracted to deliver Leader funding to Gaeltacht areas in 2009, went into liquidation in September 2011. Since then, the Department has been working with the liquidators and other stakeholders to ensure the winding-up process was conducted in an efficient and effective manner. While this took some time and is still ongoing, almost all Gaeltacht areas now have access to Leader funding through the LDC in the geographically contiguous area. My Department is working with these LDCs to determine the fairest and most equitable way to distribute funds to Gaeltacht areas, including the consideration of the provision of a separate allocation for these areas in the future. Such decisions must also be made in the context of the review process outlined above and final decisions on Leader allocations for all rural areas, including Gaeltacht areas, will not be available until this is complete.
School Relocation
I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills, Deputy Sherlock, to the House.
This matter pertains to Summercove national school, the school roll number of which is 18829J. In a nutshell, this is a very old school that was built in 1909 and in May 1998, its board of management made an application for a new school building on the advice of a senior official of the Office of Public Works, OPW, because it had outgrown its original purpose. On 7 December 1999, a report was made by a school inspector to the effect that the school should move to a new site. Subsequently, the then Minister for Education and Science, who I believe was Deputy Micheál Martin, indicated that a new school for Summercove, Kinsale, was a priority. In September 2004, the OPW placed a notice in the public press seeking a suitable site for a new school for Summercove. Various proposed sites were submitted and one such site was located directly across the road from the existing school.
However, the local landowner was not prepared to sell or dispose of that site. In March 2007, the individual put forward a proposal that he would sell a site at Summercove crossroads for the purpose of a new school. The site was examined by a senior architect from the Office of Public Works, OPW, who gave a favourable report on this issue. The then board of management submitted a planning application under planning reference 0711917 to Cork County Council. Unfortunately, in a decision made in December 2007, the county council refused the aforementioned outline application on the basis that the site at Summercove crossroads, Ardbrack, Kinsale, was not zoned for educational purposes. This was an absolute cop-out by the county council and a dereliction of its social duties to provide planning.
In April 2009, an Adjournment debate took place in the Seanad in which my former colleague, Deputy McCarthy, and I participated. I stated the school in question originally was built as a two-teacher school with a small number of pupils. However, over the past 25 years or more, the population of Summercove has increased and at present, 212 pupils attend the school. At the time of that debate, one of the school's prefabs was 26 years old and the Minister conceded it was the oldest prefab in Ireland. A second prefab was 20 years old, while a third was ten years old. The 26-year old prefab was subsequently replaced by the Department of Education and Skills. At that time, the Department had been paying rent of €53,000 per annum for prefabs and while I believe this may have been resolved subsequently, it indicates the ludicrous situation that was allowed to develop.
In 2011, the school's board of management had a meeting with the county manager to ascertain whether the planning process could be advanced and eventually, after two planning applications, the board of management in its frustration found it had come up against a brick wall. It had considerable difficulty in getting planning and despite numerous efforts by me in the past and by previous Ministers, this planning permission was not granted. I understand the existing Summercove school building was examined by departmental professionals from its technical section on Friday, 18 January 2013 and as a result, it appears as though the Minister now has decided to remove the construction of a new school for Summercove from the building priority list, while citing the fact that no planning permission exists.
Although I have no axe to grind with the Minister of State, I believe this again is a sort of cop-out because the need is so great. The Minister and his senior officials, in conjunction with those in the OPW who are trying to acquire the site, as well as officials of Cork County Council, should have worked together to provide or obtain a new site. I understand the farmer involved had offered two different options. Some of the grounds on which Cork County Council turned down the site were superfluous and not real or genuine. I will make this point carefully because I do not wish to point and have never pointed a derogatory finger at any official of Cork County Council, the OPW or the Department of Education and Skills. However, it appears to me and increasingly to the teachers in the school - who received an awful kick in the backside because of this decision - its management board, which has done tremendous hard work behind the scenes, the parents and more particularly the pupils, as though there has been collusion of sorts between all the various agencies. This school, which has developed rapidly, is a wonderful school and the Minister of State may not be aware it has the second highest academic record of any school in the whole of Munster, being 10% above the average. This is the reason that over the past 25 years, it has expanded from being a small school to one which probably now has ten or 12 teachers.
There has been an announcement concerning the possible construction of a new school in the heart of Kinsale, where there are issues with traffic problems. While I wish that project good luck, it would be wrong to ignore the plight of the pupils and teachers who are living in atrociously difficult conditions. I hope the Minister of State will have good news for me from the senior Minister in the Department, Deputy Quinn, that he will reverse the decision and instead of removing the project from the building list, he will redouble his efforts to ensure a site is obtained, planning permission is expedited and construction of the new school will be included in the new programme encompassing the period from 2013 to 2018. I would be highly upset to be obliged to return to my constituents, particularly the parents, children, hard-working teachers and those involved in the board of management, to state the plan, about which they were complaining to me in 2003, is now likely to go beyond 2020 with no hope of a resolution.
I am responding to this Adjournment matter on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn.
I thank the Senator for raising the matter as it provides me with the opportunity to clarify the current position on a proposed new school building for Summercove national school. The school has applied to the Department for large-scale capital funding for a new school building. The school is currently located on a half acre site and an alternative greenfield site is required for a new school In the context of the co-operation by the Department of Education and Skills with local authorities in identifying suitable sites for schools, the Department has worked with both the Office of Public Works and the local authority over a number of years in an effort to identify suitable sites for the construction of permanent accommodation for the school.
The Senator might find it helpful if I set out the context within which decisions relating to meeting the demographic challenge facing the education system in the coming years are made. Total enrolment in both primary and post-primary schools is expected to grow by almost 70,000 by 2018 - more than 45,000 at primary level and 25,000 at post-primary level. To ensure that every child has access to a physical school place, it is vital that there is sufficient school accommodation available to cater for these pupil enrolments. The delivery of building projects to meet the increasing demographic demands will be the main focus for capital investment over the duration of the five-year plan, particularly in those areas where it has been identified that most demographic growth will be concentrated. In this regard, Kinsale has not been identified as an area of significant demographic growth. Pupil enrolment projections for Kinsale indicate that enrolments will remain relatively stable for the foreseeable future.
Officials from the Department's building unit met with Summercove school authorities in January 2013, as Senator O'Donovan explained, to explore the options that might be open to the school to improve its existing accommodation. Subsequently, a member of the Department's technical staff visited the school to examine the possibility of addressing the school's most urgent needs. However, the option of providing some permanent accommodation to replace the school's temporary accommodation and to address traffic management on the site does not appear possible due to the restricted nature of the site. The Department accepts therefore that a new site is required. However, given the need to meet demographic growth, the delivery of new schools, together with extension projects to meet future demand will be the main focus of the Department's budget for the coming years. In this regard, it is not possible to indicate at this point when a building project for the school will be progressed. I thank the Senator for allowing me the opportunity to outline the position.
I understand that the Minister of State is not the line Minister and I do not want to wag the finger of blame at him. However, I wish to express my deep dissatisfaction at what has happened in Kinsale, in particular in Summercove, because whatever about demographics the school was identified as early as 1999 as being deserving of a new school which had been fought for at the time. I referred to the fact that certain delays arose in the meantime due to planning and other issues. I do not put all the blame at the doorstep of the Minister. It is not good enough for the 212 children who are being schooled in third-world accommodation and the teachers who have to deal with the situation on a daily basis. Usually I would get some satisfaction from a response but that is not the case today. I do not attribute any blame to the Minister of State but the response is not good enough and it will not be tolerated by the teachers, pupils, parents and those in the community who have looked forward to a new school for the bones of 20 years. It is a huge knock-back for them. There does not appear to be any light at the end of the tunnel. The Minister, Deputy Quinn, has overlooked the serious, specific and special needs of Summercove for the past 15 to 20 years.
I appreciate where Senator O’Donovan is coming from.
It does me no good to say that a school in my own county cannot have a definitive timeframe for the provision of a new school. The Government is faced with Hobson's choice at the moment because demographics do come into play. We are now faced with a situation in this country where there are pockets in metropolitan and urban areas where school places will not be available in the future. One must make provision in constrained economic times to allow for the necessity of people to be able to go to school. That is the Hobson’s choice that faces us.
I am willing to speak to the Minister, Deputy Quinn, about the issue again. I am aware of the history of the case, dating back to 1999, and some of the difficulties that arose between some of the State agencies involved. It is not possible at this stage to state exactly when a new school will be built. One could argue that we are putting it on the long finger. I accept the point that has been made against the Government but it must prioritise those areas where school places will not be available and make provision for them.
Consumer Protection
I thank the Minister for attending to address this matter and to hear my concerns. I wish to ask the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation whether plans are in place to provide stronger legislation to prevent multinational retailers inflating their Irish prices in comparison to their UK prices. It is my belief that the price discrepancies are fundamentally unfair and poor corporate practice. In both the short and long term, they are damaging to our economy, as each euro that is taken out of circulation in terms of disposable income is, in effect, a euro that will not be spent elsewhere. That is in addition to the obvious difficulties created for retailers who are losing out on business to the UK in circumstances where the same product can be bought at a much lesser price there even with the cost of transporting it. There is a knock-on effect for jobs in this country.
I am in favour of open markets and competition and yet with such consistent price increases across so many retailers in this country relative to the UK, increases which cannot simply be discounted by a disparity in labour costs or freight costs, I cannot help but wonder whether competition is working as fully and effectively as it should. I have written to the Consumer Association of Ireland and to the various retailers who were originally highlighted by a journalist who did some good work for The Sunday Business Post approximately two weeks ago on the issue. As yet, I have received no reply. There is no compulsion on them to reply to me. This is a serious problem which is worthy of the Minister’s time and attention. I would be grateful to hear whether there are plans to deal with the problem.
I thank the Senator for raising this matter. The question posed by her as to whether there are any plans to introduce legislation to tackle higher prices charged by traders in this jurisdiction as compared with prices charged in the neighbouring UK jurisdiction seems to presume that price control measures can protect consumers from what may be perceived as high or unjustified prices. In so far as the general issue of tackling high prices is concerned, price control measures are not an effective means of reducing prices. During the 1970s and 1980s price control was used as one of the primary tools for combating increasing consumer prices and inflation. Various analyses of that period have shown that price control was an ineffective way of tackling high prices, as in many instances maximum prices prescribed for goods very quickly became minimum prices with the result that inflation during that period rose close to 20%. In addition to failing to tackle high prices, price control also effectively acted as a disincentive to businesses becoming more efficient and further prevented justified price rises arising from legitimate cost increases incurred by business. It was for that reason that the Consumer Protection Act 2007 essentially repealed the legislation which allowed for price control and there are no plans to revisit the matter.
As regards differentials in prices for goods in this jurisdiction when compared with prices in the neighbouring UK jurisdiction, there can be legitimate reasons for prices to differ, such as exchange rate movements, different distributional costs, etc. Notwithstanding this, I do not doubt there may be instances where the level of the differential in prices charged for the same goods in the two jurisdictions cannot be justified by reasons such as exchange rate movements. In such instances, it is important that consumers use their discretion. I read the article to which the Senator refers and it is interesting to note a comment made by Mr. Mark Gould of MG Consulting who states:
Everyone is on the web, you can see what a retailer is charging in Britain versus the Republic, so why everyone hasn't responded to that transparency I don't really understand. Retailers that get caught on this only have themselves to blame.
We all have access to the Internet and consumers can exercise their power. Their price sensitivity can determine purchasing behaviour, particularly as it relates to conspicuous consumption.
In contrast to the price control era of the 1970s and the 1980s, Government policy in the area of prices has been focused on the promotion of competition and consumer awareness, given that freely functioning competitive markets are more effective at setting fair prices. In so far as promoting greater consumer awareness of prices is concerned, the Consumer Protection Act 2007 specifically mandates the National Consumer Agency to promote public awareness and conduct public information campaigns on issues such as prices. The agency has been very active in raising awareness of prices in a number of different areas. Evidence available to it shows that consumers are becoming more price conscious and changing their shopping habits to achieve better value for their money. It is the case, therefore, that competition and price awareness among consumers are more effective tools to tackle high prices than the price control policies of the past.
As regards general price trends, the consumer price index published by the Central Statistics Office shows that prices in Ireland rose by 1.2% in the 12 months to January 2013, whereas the corresponding index in the UK, the retail prices index, shows that prices there increased by 3.3% in the same period. At the European level, the harmonised index of consumer prices, which is the accepted measure for comparing price trends across the European Union, shows that prices in Ireland increased by 1.7% in 2012 as compared with an increase of 2.3% across the Union and 2.7% in the United Kingdom in the same period.
I am firmly of the view that consumers, by exercising the power they command, are better placed to ensure they get a fair deal than any legislative intervention that would seek to regulate the prices traders charge for goods and services. Accordingly, by informing themselves as to the different offerings in the marketplace and being strategic in their shopping decisions, consumers can help to ensure they achieve the best value for their money, which is all the more important in the current economic climate.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. Many of the points he makes are well considered. I am perhaps showing my age when I assure him that price comparisons between the UK and Ireland in the 1970s and 1980s were not on my radar at the time. I will contact the National Consumer Agency to ask that it increase its efforts to improve public awareness of price differentials. If it has the funding to do so, it should conduct public information campaigns on the issue. I agree with the Minister of State that the Government cannot be expected to cater for every circumstances that arises. If the view he expressed on price fixing is accurate, I would not encourage this approach. I thank him for his full response.
I note the article in The Sunday Business Post of 24 February states that a shift dress on sale in the Monsoon chain is priced at £129 in Britain, which converts to just under €150, whereas the Irish price is €199. The word "shift" in Cork parlance has completely different connotations. Perhaps the Senator will enlighten me on the matter afterwards.
Perhaps the Minister of State and Senator Noone can meet later for a chat.
I assure the Minister of State it is not a reference to the kind of shift he has in mind.
Agri-Environment Options Scheme Payments
I welcome the Minister of State and thank him for taking this matter on the Adjournment. I seek clarification concerning the payment to farmers of grants under the agri-environment options scheme, AEOS. When will these payments be made? A large number of farmers in my local area, for example, in Athenry, Loughrea, Gort, Tuam and Kinvara, have been waiting for an unacceptably long time to have payments furnished to them. I understand farmers in the Galway East constituency are not alone and that numbers awaiting payment run into the thousands. Most of those affected are in an uncertain position and it is a source of frustration to them that payments are being held up for reasons that are not clear. The farmers in question have co-operated fully with the conditions of the scheme and are to be commended on the patience they have shown thus far. Farmers require certainty, however, regarding when payments will be made, given that in the current times they must manage tight farm budgets.
I am aware that administrative problems arose in the AEOS 2 scheme but the matters were resolved after some time had elapsed. It is clear that more targeted action must be taken to prevent a repeat of these problems. It is vital that farmers receive their AEOS 2 payments immediately and that all payments are made without undue delay. Farm incomes have declined significantly in recent years and in the current times the option of subsidising their income by securing off-farm employment is no longer available. For this reason, the types of financial supports provided under the agri-environment options scheme are vital for ensuring the continuing success of local community focused farms. In the circumstances, I ask the Minister of State to confirm when the payments will be made and seek an assurance from the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine that he will undertake to ensure all payments will be made in a timely manner in future. I look forward to the Minister of State's response.
I thank Senator Higgins for raising this matter and convey the Minister's regrets that he cannot attend this debate in person. To set the context, the position is that payments by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine under the agri-environment options scheme, or AEOS as it is commonly known, are well advanced at this stage. Before discussing the details, I emphasise the commitment of the Minister and Government to the agri-environment schemes, namely, AEOS and the rural environmental protection scheme, as operated by the Department. The schemes put environmentally friendly farming to the forefront and recognise the vital role farmers play in delivering public goods in protecting the environment and natural heritage for the benefit of society as a whole. This commitment is evident in the fact that despite serious budgetary pressures facing his Department, the Minister opened AEOS to new applicants last year. In this regard, an additional €20 million was made available annually for five years to fund new applications under the scheme. This ongoing commitment is also evident in the fact that more than €750 million was spent by the Department on agri-environment schemes in the past three years alone, with a further €200 million available in 2013 under both REPS and AEOS.
There are currently almost 30,000 participants in REPS and their contracts will continue until expiry of the five year contract period in each case. The successor to REPS, the agri-environment options scheme, is a more targeted agri-environment scheme for which funding is provided from modulation funds under the Common Agricultural Policy health check. As Senators will be aware, AEOS specifically targets three challenges that have been assigned the highest priority at European Union level as needing urgent action. The format of the scheme is a menu type approach, as distinct from the whole farm approach adopted under REPS. It consists of actions which can be demonstrably linked to the three important challenges targeted.
There are approximately 15,000 participants in AEOS 1 and 2, which were opened to new participants in 2010 and 2011, respectively. The EU regulations governing the scheme and other area based schemes require that a full and comprehensive administrative check, including cross-checks with the land parcel identification system, is completed before any payment can issue. Previous EU audits have made it clear that compliance with the regulations must be strictly adhered to and all checks must be passed and eligibility conditions met before payment issues. This means payment cannot be released until all aspects of a farmer's application are in order, all outstanding documentation provided and all queries resolved. These requirements are a significant administrative challenge, albeit one that the Department has successfully addressed.
The current position regarding payments under AEOS is that under AEOS 1, all outstanding payments due in respect of both 2010 and 2011 have been finalised.
Of the 7,500 participants remaining in that scheme, nearly 6,500 have received payment in respect of 2012. The remaining cases are being cleared on an ongoing basis as queries are resolved.
There are 6,250 approved participants in AEOS 2, 5,300 of whom have received a payment in respect of 2011. The outstanding cases are being finalised as outstanding queries are received. Applicants have been informed of these outstanding queries and payments are being made on an ongoing basis as responses are received.
Last year saw the first full-year payment for AEOS 2 applicants. In order to activate payment where non-productive capital investments were selected, a valid capital investment claim form was required. The high level of queries and farmer delays in submitting valid claims has resulted in a lower than expected level of 2012 payments under AEOS 2. In all, 2,500 have received payment at this stage. There are a large number of queries arising. To deal with the outstanding queries, additional resources have been directed to this area with the intention of clearing the backlog as soon as possible. The majority of the outstanding payments relate to applicants who chose a capital investment option, such as the planting of trees or hedgerows, on their AEOS contract. Under the scheme, payment for these options commences in 2012. In order to be paid for 2012, farmers must have submitted valid receipts.
Approximately 1,000 farmers have not submitted any claim form to date and of those who did, a very high percentage had queries which require further contact with the farmer. For these farmers, no part of their 2012 payment can be issued until they submit their receipts and the outstanding issues are resolved with them. The Department has contacted farmers who have not submitted claim forms at least twice, including where possible by phone, and is now dealing with replies received and outstanding queries. Where applicants have received correspondence in this regard, they should respond as soon as possible. On the basis of responses received from letters that have issued and the phone calls made by officials in the Department, the Minister aims to ensure that all outstanding cases are resolved in the shortest time possible.
As I have mentioned, AEOS 3 was opened to applications at the end of 2012. The funding of €20 million per annum that the Minister has provided will allow for approximately 4,000 new participants to be approved. The Department is currently processing the applications with a view to issuing approvals in the next few weeks. It is expected that payments will commence towards the end of the year.
I reaffirm the Government's commitment to the agri-environment schemes. The Minister is at all times conscious of the importance of the payments to farmer's incomes. He asked me to convey that he will ensure that his Department continues to make every effort to expedite all payments under these schemes.
I thank the Minister of State for his response. It would be helpful if the Minister, Deputy Coveney, were here. Agriculture is his specific responsibility and there were a few points I wanted to put to him. I accept that if applications are not fully completed, it is very difficult to pay out. The reality is that quite a number of farmers have completed their application forms properly and would have expected to have been paid out in a timely manner. It would be extremely helpful to farmers, particularly those in my constituency, if the Minister indicated a timeframe, in terms of weeks or months, in which farmers will be paid. Ultimately, they have financial and other commitments, and they have creditors whom they are expected to pay, just like anybody else. They are totally reliant on schemes such as the AEOS to assist them in that regard.
I acknowledge and welcome the additional resources provided by the Minister to ensure payments will be made. I ask the Minister of State to pass on my thanks to the Minister in that regard. I urge the Minister to indicate a timeframe in which the payments will be made and to make a public statement on the matter.
I fully acknowledge the points made by Senator Higgins. To be helpful, I will make sure to speak to the Minister on the issues she has outlined in respect of her constituency. A legitimate question arises if no queries arose regarding individual farmers' applications and if the files still have not been dealt with expeditiously. I will certainly relate this to the Minister.
The Seanad adjourned at 5.05 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 13 March 2013.