Priority Questions
1 Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has raised the issue of a European wide milk quota rather than a national quota in view of the fact that the European Union will be under quota this year; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28022/11]
View answerI thank Deputy Moynihan for keeping this issue on the agenda. He has been very consistent in raising the concern that the soft landing strategy of the European Union simply is not working for Ireland, and that we should pursue changes to that policy which will allow Ireland more flexibility between now and the end of 2015, when milk quotas are abolished, to allow growth in that sector and avoid superlevy fines at the end of this milk quota year, which ends next March.
I am glad to update the House on the efforts we are continuing to make. We are lobbying the Commission and the agriculture ministers of different countries at every opportunity, the most recent being a bilateral meeting with the French agriculture minister, Mr. Le Maire, in Paris last Friday. This was a major issue on the agenda, along with other Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, and Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, issues. I am glad to say that France will be a key ally for us on the major issues of Irish concern in both the CFP and the CAP.
The superlevy is a problem. We are nearly 3% over quota so far this year. It is a huge problem in counties such as Cork where dozens of farmers are already over quota. The last thing we want is progressive farmers to be slapped with significant super levy fines next year. This is a major concern because it is a serious possibility at present. Unfortunately, we do not have a political way out because there is no traction in the proposal to move from a country based quota system to a European Union quota. This objective, which is being pursued by the Fianna Fáil Party, is not a runner at present.
The issue we are pursuing and on which we are most likely to get some traction is agreement on a butterfat correction. If we secured some flexibility in this area, Ireland would be able to increase its quota this year by between 1.5% and 2% in addition to the 1% we receive under the soft landing policy. We have not yet secured agreement on this matter and may not do so. For this reason, the message to farmers from me and my Department is clear; they must try to operate within the quota that has been allocated. Many farmers are responding to this message. At the end of both May and June, Ireland exceeded its quota by 6%, relative to the time of year. The figure has declined to slightly less than 3%. Despite the progress that has been made, I remain concerned. We will redouble our efforts to secure some flexibility to ease the pressure on dairy farmers who are seeking to expand. As of yet, we have not found a solution.
I thank the Minister for the information he has provided. He is fully aware of my opinion on this matter which is a serious issue in County Cork and across the country. Did he receive solid support from the French Minister for Agriculture in their discussions last Friday? According to the information available earlier this year, France was among the countries which were unwilling to enter into further negotiations on a European wide milk quota. The Minister referred to flexibility on butterfat potentially facilitating an increase in milk quota of between 1.5% and 2% this year. Is this is a serious possibility? While we must be responsible in advising farmers to remain within the milk quota, a number of policy decisions in recent years have placed farmers in an impossible position this year in terms of the amount of stock they have as they gear up for 2015 and beyond. As the Minister correctly noted, the farmers in question are taking a progressive approach. I ask him to elaborate on the views expressed by the French minister and the likelihood of achieving a butterfat correction.
To be clear on this matter, there is no appetite in France to reopen the milk quota negotiations on the soft landing. We are asking the French minister to consider agreeing to a butterfat correction, which would not be popular among French farmers. The overriding concern for France and Germany is to retain the milk quota regime as it stands until 2015. They believe any flexibility or loosening of the current arrangement could lead to a reduction in milk prices as a result of increases in supply. We do not share that assessment. While there is not a strong appetite in France or Germany for revisiting the milk quota issue, we have, for the first time, secured a response which suggested both countries would consider constructively the issue of a butterfat correction. Such a correction would be very helpful in terms of this year's milk quota but would not offer any solutions in the two subsequent years. We will continue to pursue this issue, working with the French and trying to convince the German Minister for Agriculture who has been absolutely resistant on this matter, even on the possibility of a butterfat correction. While we have much diplomatic work to do to make progress on this issue, there is no shortage of effort on our part.
Before dealing with Question No. 2, I am giving Deputy Martin Ferris permission to question the Minister, although it is, strictly speaking, outside the rules to do so. Priority Questions are confined to spokespersons unless written permission is received in accordance with Standing Orders. I ask the Deputy to pass on this information to his party to ensure certainty in this regard.
2 Deputy Michael Colreavy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish details of the targets that he has set out for the Irish fishing industry in the negotiations regarding the common fisheries proposals; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28143/11]
View answerI thank Deputy Ferris and his party for raising this issue. Deputy Pringle and others are also interested in the reply as it relates to the Common Fisheries Policy.
Rather than reading out a long answer, I will try to convey to the Deputies the elements of the reply in which they will be interested. A number of key issues arise for Ireland with regard to the Common Fisheries Policy. I propose to single out a few of them, although that may be a slight contradiction in terms. The first key issue is the concept of transferable fishing concessions, which is one of the big ideas in the current proposals on the Common Fisheries Policy. When Commissioner Damanaki visited Ireland, I spent nearly two hours discussing this issue with her to help her understand the reason the current proposal poses such a threat to the future of the Irish fishing industry. The thinking behind this concept, which would essentially privatise quotas by allowing them to be traded, is to reduce the fleet size through consolidation. Those who could afford to buy up quota from others would do so and fishing boats would be removed from the fleet, resulting in consolidation within countries and fleets. Ireland opposes this proposal, having already significantly reduced our fleet size under a recent fleet reduction programme. We do not want a consolidation of the fishing industry into two or three large ports, nor do we want to allow fishing interests from outside the country establishing a presence to buy up quota. The quota purchased would then be used by non-Irish fishing fleets and fish catches would be taken to non-Irish fishing ports. I have made clear to the Commissioner our concerns about her proposals on the transferability of fishing concessions and quotas. Ireland has taken a consistent position on this issue and has allies around Europe who share our concerns. We must keep quota in the control and management of the State to ensure it is allocated, rather than sold to the fleet, in a manner that is responsible and keeps coastal communities intact.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is scheduled for adoption in the latter half of 2012. This is an ambitious target and there is a strong possibility that the adoption of the new policy will be delayed and fall into 2013 during the Irish Presidency of the EU.
A reformed CFP is a critical policy issue for Ireland as it will shape the strategic blueprint for the European fishing industry for the next decade. The CFP impacts on the social, economic and environmental pillars of the wider seafood industry and the proposals will hold both opportunities and risks for Ireland.
My overarching goal for the new CFP is for a sustainable, profitable and self-reliant industry that protects and enhances the social and economic fabric of rural coastal communities dependent on the seafood sector, while balancing these objectives with the need to deliver a sustainable and eco-centred fisheries landscape for future generations. I am pursuing initiatives that will deliver and sustain jobs in coastal communities rather than those that promote the concentration of wealth and delivery of excessive profits for a few big international businesses.
I can broadly support the general thrust of the proposals put forward by the Commission in its proposal of 13 July on such key issues as enhanced conservation, rebuilding fish stocks, reducing discarding of fish, introducing more selective fishing gears to allow small fish and unwanted by-catches to escape and the use of multi-annual plans as a primary tool to rebuild and manage fish stocks. However, I have differing views on some key points from an Irish perspective. Subject to further negotiation on important details in respect of those issues I would expect that by the conclusion of the negotiations, I would hope to be in a position to support these important elements of the reform proposals. Within the package there are specific issues that are of critical importance to Ireland which I will address in more detail.
I have serious concerns about the implications of the Commission's intention to impose the mandatory introduction of individually transferable concessions, that is, quotas. Under this system, fish quotas would be allocated as tradeable commodities to private individuals and companies for at least 15 years and those individuals would be permitted to sell on the quotas.
There is serious concern in Ireland that under the current set of proposals, which the Commission has published, there is a real risk that the economic benefit from our quotas will be increasingly lost to Ireland. We fear that large European conglomerates, registering in Ireland, would buy up our quotas and increasingly land them abroad. This would cost us thousands of jobs around the coast and would starve our growing seafood processing industry of raw material. At this point, we can see no safeguards that could be built into the proposals which would prevent this happening.
In relation to discards, I fully support the objectives on addressing the unacceptable and wasteful practice of discarding as set in this proposal. The Commission proposal involves the introduction of a ban on discarding of fish which would be applied incrementally over the period 2014-16. The discarding of fish makes no sense at any level and must be ended. I believe that we need radical action to bring an end to this wasteful practice which is as abhorrent to fishermen as it is to the general public. The Commission proposal for a ban is too simplistic and is more likely to result in the concealment of the practice than a change in the behaviour. I am absolutely committed to addressing the problem in a practical and progressive manner working directly with fishermen and scientists.
The retention of the Hague preferences is a key issue for Ireland as it gives Irish fishermen a safety net of additional quotas when stock levels go below a certain point. In the Commission proposal, the Hague preferences are recognised in the same manner as heretofore. Ireland sought their full integration into the CFP to avoid the current situation where their application each year is a matter for decision by the EU Fisheries Council. I will continue to pursue this approach but I am fully aware that we may face opposition for their inclusion, in any form, from those member states which lose quota when they are invoked.
In terms of the process, there is a long road to take before the reform of the CFP is finalised and many member states will have conflicting agendas on certain issues. CommissionerDamanaki has visited Ireland and I had a good opportunity to set out Ireland's priorities and to give her a full understanding of the situation of the sector in Ireland and the likely impacts of her proposals, both positive and negative.
I have been actively building alliances with like-minded colleagues in Europe. I met my French Counterpart Minister Le Maire on 30 September and issued a joint communiqué which included a commitment to work closely on sustainability measures including discards, regionalisation and importantly on our opposition to the proposals on ITQs as they currently stand. I intend to build further alliances where possible and continue to liaise with our industry and other stakeholders to pursue and secure Ireland's priorities in a reformed CFP.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the flexibility he has shown me today.
I am encouraged by the Minister's statement that he is exerting pressure on the Commissioner and building alliances on the transfer of quotas, which is a major concern across coastal communities. The lack of quota is a serious problem. It is very annoying that fishing is becoming less and less viable for many Irish fishermen. While they are unable to secure quota, some 50% of the quota in France is not taken up. The negotiations on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy in 2013 should provide for the introduction of a mechanism to allow excess or unused national quotas to be distributed to countries such as Ireland to enable them to maintain a viable industry. In the current circumstances, where we have mass unemployment, the economy is in a bad way and the economy of coastal communities has been decimated in recent years, Sinn Féin and all coastal Deputies will give the Minister their full support if he makes the transfer of quota a priority in the forthcoming negotiations. I ask him to do so.
On the specific issue raised by Deputy Ferris, a mechanism is in place which allows trading of quotas between countries. It is a swapping system under which my Department may negotiate and discuss with other countries the option of swapping quota for different species. While the current system facilitates these types of swaps, it does not allow countries which do not use their full whitefish quota to sell or transfer it to another country. France has the biggest whitefish quota in Irish waters and it is certainly not true to say it is not using up to 50% of that quota. My understanding is it is using practically all of its quota, this year at least. There may be individual species for which it has not filled its quota. It often seeks to swap quota and acquire by return quota for other species. I understand the Deputy's point but it is very unlikely that as quota becomes more valuable fishing fleets will not use theirs in full in the future.
The other issues concerning the Common Fisheries Policy relate to discards. I strongly support in principle what the Commissioner is trying to do in that regard although I believe her approach is flawed in that boats would be forced to land all fish caught, from 2014 to 2016, on a phased basis. The Irish approach and policy to discards will be clear. It will take fish on a stock by stock or species by species basis, looking for technical solutions. First, we will want to reduce the catch of fish currently being discarded and we need to do that proactively. In addition, we will look at ways in which we can eliminate discards entirely when and where that is possible. We must do that with the industry. Otherwise we will drive the issue underground — or underwater as would be the case.
3 Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will maintain the current level of funding to REP scheme, agri-environment options scheme and the disadvantaged areas payment in budget 2012; if he will acknowledge that many small farmers are dependent upon schemes such as these and will be very negatively impacted by any reduction in funding; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28142/11]
View answerFair play to the Deputy. He wants me to announce my budget a few months early. The reality, of course, is that I cannot give him the assurance he seeks, namely, that there will be no cuts to any of the schemes from which we make payments — REPS, AOS, disadvantaged area payments, the less favoured area scheme, LFAs, and so on. When I met the IFA yesterday I told delegates it is important to be up-front with people from the start. There will be cutbacks in our budget which will affect some schemes. We have not yet decided which schemes or at what level but the reality is that the four-year budgetary framework in which I must operate involves a reduction in expenditure from €1.647 billion to €1.286 billion by my Department, from 2011 to 2012. That reduction, as published material, was available from when the last Government was in place, showing €361 million in reduction between this year and next year. Some of the reduction will be accounted for by schemes that are ending naturally in any case, for example, the waste management scheme on farms which was very capital intensive. A number of people have left REPS and gone into AOS which is not as expensive to the State.
However, even when all these issues are taken into account we are still being asked to make savings of between €150 million and €200 million, which is a lot of money. That is why we have been very serious about going through a long and difficult expenditure review process, to try to reduce the cost of delivering services from my Department and to make as much of a saving as possible. The need remains to make some savings from the schemes we operate. I want to work with farming organisations and anybody else who wants to be part of the process to decide which sectors of the farming community can shoulder some of that burden so that we can protect the more vulnerable sectors of farming.
I will make decisions based on two principles, first, to protect the lowest income farmer and people who live in the most vulnerable areas who cannot take advantage of increased prices or very strong markets, in other words, people in disadvantaged areas. Second, I want to make decisions that are consistent with the targets in the Food Harvest 2020 strategy that will allow farming to continue to expand and grow. Even if those principles are applied there will be some difficult choices to make. Some cuts will be required which will target some of the schemes to which the Deputy referred.
I thank the Minister and give him credit for appearing to be very interested in his subject. He is one of the few Ministers who comes to the House and is able to give his replies without notes. This shows a strong level of interest and an understanding of the situation.
The Minister answered my question, more or less. If we were arguing about social issues or any other issues that concern the State and how it decides to spend its money I would make the same point. The Minister referred in his answer to what we need to do. I realise there will be less money to divide up. My appeal is much as the Minister noted. Here, as in all other sectors we should feel a responsibility to protect the more vulnerable. It goes without saying that all cuts most hurt the most vulnerable. The Minister's reply indicates he seems to be geared towards acting with that in mind.
The last time I raised some of these points in the Chamber the Minister stated the disadvantaged area payments would be paid in September. I understand from some farmers who spoke to me that they still have not been paid. I am sure that is not the Minister's fault. The farmers in County Wexford do not seem to have been paid, at any rate. Will they be paid soon? Some moneys are due from last year on the AOS and still have not been paid.
Will the Deputy give the Minister a chance to reply? The time is nearly up.
I shall put on the record the facts about the disadvantaged area payments because that is a fair question. Some farmers have been paid and some have not. I shall give the numbers. To date, €164 million has been paid to 75,000 farmers from the disadvantaged area payments scheme, DAS. This is €42 million ahead of the position in 2010 and we have worked hard to try to get payments paid more quickly. Of the 25,000 people awaiting payments, 5,000 are non-compliant with stocking density, 10,000 have been contacted about over-claims or dual claims that need clarification; 3,000 inspections are being processed and 7,000 require maps to be digitised. In those cases maps have been sent in, physically, on a piece of paper, and need to be digitised onto a computer which takes time. Sometimes there is an inconsistency between maps that needs clarification or inspection. If any payments have not come through yet under the DAS it is either because they require clarity and explanation or because there is a disqualification. We are anxious to try to clarify these points quickly and make the payments as quickly as we can.
The same applies to the AOS payments from last year, which we have already started to pay. There are mapping issues here too. For example, when applying for AOS many people have included maps that do not match the maps they submitted for their single farm payment. Something is wrong somewhere and until we get clarity we cannot make payments because when the Commission audits what we do those issues will arise. There are real reasons for any delays that exist but I assure the Deputy we are working extremely hard to get payments out as quickly as possible.
4 Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food his views that the option to use 2011 as the basis year for eligibility under the new Common Agricultural Policy would be preferable to 2014; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28023/11]
View answerI have the relevant reference. There has been much concern, particularly among farmers involved in leasing. Last year approximately 17% of the farmed land in Ireland was leased, on either short-term or long-term leases. That is a significant portion of farmland and that 17% of leased land is often very high quality, productive farmland.
Many rumours have been coming from Brussels and elsewhere to the effect that the Commission's proposals, to be published next Wednesday, will have 2014 as the reference year for future single farm payment. That has caused much concern because when a reference year is set for a future date it impacts on land mobility and rental markets. Obviously people will want to maximise the holding they are farming in a reference year. I have repeatedly made the case to the Commission — as have my officials and they did so as recently as earlier today at the G5 — that it must reconsider the position. The idea of setting a reference year in the future could contribute to warping the rental and leasing market for land in a way that would not be either anticipated or desired. This is something we need to prevent.
The Commission has redrafted sections of the proposal it is due to bring forward next week to try to take account of some of the issues we have raised with it. I have my doubts with regard to whether it will change the 2014 reference year. It will probably retain that as the reference year. However, I am of the view that it will include new elements and paragraphs to try to reassure those who had entitlements in 2010 and 2011 that they will also have such entitlements after 2014. We must wait and see what happens next week but I encourage people not to jump to conclusions until the proposal is published next Wednesday.
The concern among members of the farming community is that people will seek to maximise their entitlements. In such circumstances, the price for rental land would rise to such an extent that it would be unsustainable. In the drive to maximise their payments, this could cause farmers to make decisions that would have a detrimental effect on their businesses. I welcome the Minister's comments to the effect that he and his officials have contacted the Commission in respect of the 2014 reference year. Do I take it that 2014 is still in the mix or are the reports which were leaked last week and which indicated that the reference year had reverted to 2011 accurate?
The honest answer is that we do not know. To use the Deputy's terminology, it is certainly still in the mix. We have been involved in conversations on a fairly regular basis with the Commission at official level. We have very good relations with the Commission and it listens to what we have to say. Ireland is one of the key players in CAP from a policy point of view. Because agriculture is so important to the Irish economy, the Commission takes us very seriously. We have made a strong case to the Commission urging it to be cautious in the context of the original leak which indicated that 2014 would be the base year. We have asked it to try to take account of our concerns and it stated that it would endeavour to do so.
We have also lobbied several governments in respect of this issue and encouraged them to express their concerns to the Commission. To a certain extent, this has worked. At least two other governments have expressed concern on this issue. I do not want to become involved in speculation on how the Commission will respond. I have an idea as to how it might proceed but it would be irresponsible of make any remarks which might get the rumour mill going again. I would rather wait to see what emerges next week. We have made our case very strongly and let us see how the Commission responds. We can deal with the consequences when the published document emerges.
5 Deputy Michael Colreavy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any proposals to cap the fees paid by farmers to veterinarians; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28144/11]
View answerFees paid by farmers to private veterinary practitioners are a private contractual matter between the two parties concerned and I have no statutory function in this area. In line with the position more broadly in the economy — for professions and other service providers — veterinary fees and charges are set in accordance with general market principles. It would not be appropriate for me to impose a cap on the level of fees charged by veterinary practitioners. I encourage farmers to shop around to obtain best value from their local veterinary service providers. In this regard, it is interesting to note that the Competition Authority concluded in its report on the veterinary profession in 2008 that there are wide variations in the fees charged by veterinarians and in their charging methods. Fees charged by veterinarians also take into account daytime and night-time calls, distance travelled, and so on. In addition, a survey of fees charged by veterinarians in respect of TB and brucellosis testing, which was conducted by the Irish Farmers’ Journal last year, shows that fees charged for this service vary considerably, indicating that competition exists in the market place and that farmers can achieve value for money if they shop around.
Last year, the IFA estimated in 2009 the overall cost to farmers of medicines alone was €117 million. It also estimated that the cost of veterinary fees was approximately €2,000 per farm. It is disturbing that there is a variation in prices with regard to compulsory testing. The latter is supposed to benefit the State and all the people who live in it, as well as eradicating any type of disease which might be there. I wonder whether it might be possible to fix the price in this regard.
A survey carried out by the IFA in 2009 shows that some products, including antibiotics, were being sold for three times the amount for which they could be purchased at the lower end of the price scale. It would be of assistance if a mechanism relating to fixing the price of medicines in order to do away with the variations relating thereto could be put in place. Farm incomes tend to ebb and flow. They are quite good at present but three or four years ago they were quite low. While there are variations, the cost of medicines and the amounts charged in fees have remained virtually the same during the intervening period. It is costing farmers who are trying to survive and remain in the industry a great deal of money to cater for their livestock, and so on. A mechanism should be put in place so that a standard charge would apply in respect of compulsory testing or so forth.
It is fair to state that the cost of veterinary fees represents a significant portion of the costs incurred by those who own livestock farms. Compulsory testing has become part and parcel of farming. The standards we impose on farmers are expensive. That is one of the reasons I make no apologies to anyone who may be critical of the single farm payment system or the other systems of financial support for farmers. It costs more to produce food in the European Union than is the case in other parts of the world and European consumers must pay for that because it is they who demand higher standards. That is what is involved in the support systems to which we refer and in respect of which I am obliged, in the context of the CAP, to negotiate on a weekly basis. The implications of compulsory testing and the other matters I have outlined are increased costs for farmers.
All of the evidence suggests that there is a significant difference between what some farmers pay to veterinarians and what others pay. The evidence also shows that, potentially, there is a big difference with regard to what they pay for medicines. There is no doubt that some veterinarians charge a great deal more than others. The first thing we should do is encourage farmers to shop around. If there is evidence of cartels operating in different regions or counties, I need to know about it so that we can investigate. I would be slow to go down the road of introducing a cap in respect of the amount veterinarians can charge for services provided. Once a cap was introduced on one service, there would be immediate calls for similar caps to be put in place in respect of others.
Veterinary inspections are part of farming now. It is the responsibility of farmers, as business people, to shop around to try to obtain the services and products they require at the best possible price. They should consider entering into partnerships so that they might share the cost of paying veterinary bills, and so on to try to drive prices down. A cap in respect of the charges veterinarians can impose would probably be too blunt a tool. There are other ways in which farmers can help themselves in this regard.
I raise the issue of the obligation relating to compulsory testing — I am fully in favour of this because it is necessary — because in the case of influenza injections and so forth, people pay a standard price. Why is it not possible to charge a set amount in respect of each head of cattle?
That would be the standard price and it would create much security for some farmers. These tests must be done and the farmer can be held to ransom.
I will look into it.
