Adjournment Debate.

Job Protection.

Deputy Brian O’Shea

The decision of the Government to reject Waterford Wedgwood's request for State guarantees on loans of €39 million is unimaginative and potentially devastating to the Waterford area. The live register for the Waterford area stood at 6,586 in April 2008, an increase of 1,288 on the figure of 5,298 in April 2007. The restructuring package for Waterford Crystal in Kilbarry includes a redundancy programme to eliminate 490 jobs. The short-time working arrangements which will operate at the Kilbarry plant for three weeks in the next two months is a further negative development.

Without loan guarantees, the future of the remaining 550 jobs must be a matter of serious concern. UNITE has given its full support to the company's request for loan guarantees, which it made because it is unable to raise finance of its own accord. Reports suggest that the European Commission would not veto State aid in response to the company's request. I ask the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to clarify whether the rejection of the application was purely a Government decision.

The decision to reject guaranteeing loans of up to €39 million is incredible in the context of the 550 jobs that are at stake. It would cost the IDA multiples of that figure to develop a similar number of jobs in Waterford. The Government is displaying unimaginative conservatism, given that Waterford Wedgwood could trade out of difficulties, in which case it would not draw upon the loan guarantees.

The US is Waterford Crystal's main market, but because the dollar is extremely weak there has been a significant reduction in earnings from the company's products. Americans tend not to travel in years when there is a presidential election in their country. This is affecting the Irish market. A new US president will be elected in the autumn and this gives strong grounds for optimism that confidence in the American economy will be boosted and that consumer spending will increase. This would be a basis for Waterford Crystal to trade its way out of difficulty. If, however, the Government does not review this awful decision, the knock-on effects for the Waterford area will be unthinkable.

The Government continues to refuse to process Waterford Institute of Technology's application to upgrade in order that it might become the university of the south east so that Waterford and the surrounding region could obtain their fair share of jobs and development in the knowledge economy and enhance the region's capacity for research and development. The Government is effectively turning its back on the future development and prosperity of the south-east region, where the traditional industrial base is being eroded and where alternative job creation is not being promoted to anywhere near an adequate level.

The argument is advanced that if the Waterford Wedgwood application is granted, many similar applications will emerge. This is just a cover for inaction and a lack of courage and initiative. The Government's offer to assist the company in ways other than the loan guarantees is a pathetic and meaningless gesture. The reported Government belief that Waterford Crystal has a sound future rings hollow against the rejection of the loan guarantees application. Surely a company which has a sound future but which is experiencing short-term difficulties more than merits loan guarantees to the extent of €39 million in order that 550 jobs can be protected.

The job losses are the first and major issue but the consequent and significant negative spin-off affects for the local economy must also be factored in. A blinkered approach without flair or imagination, as represented in the Government's rejection, isinappropriate and unacceptable. Job protection and retention in this growing economic recession requires a Government capable of thinking outside the box and dealing with today's problem immediately.

Applications for aid on the part of industrial concerns that may or may not be made in the future must be dealt with on their merits. The Waterford Crystal case has unanswerable merit and logic to it. I call on the Minister to encourage the Government to engage in a positive review of this decision in order to avoid a potential unemployment and economic catastrophe for the Waterford area.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Deputy Billy Kelleher)

I thank Deputy O'Shea for raising this important matter. For some months the Government has engaged with the management of Waterford Wedgwood plc, following a request from the company for support to assist in the implementation of its restructuring plan. The support sought was to fund planned restructuring in Waterford Crystal, which would involve approximately 500 redundancies.

Owing to the fact that Waterford Crystal is a major Irish employer, with an internationally recognised brand and a solid history of exporting achievement, particularly in the US market, the Government was most anxious to ensure that its request for assistance received the fullest consideration. Accordingly, detailed discussions were held with the company with a view to identifying possible interventions that would assist it in successfully completing the planned restructuring in Waterford, while not undermining the policy position that has underpinned our enterprise development strategies in the past two decades. It was not possible to accede to the company's request.

The thrust of enterprise strategy, adhered to by all Governments during the past 20 years or so, is to concentrate State support to firms for investments that will help them to compete successfully in an increasingly globalised economy. The Government sees its role as helping to create an economic environment where business can prosper and focus on interventions that are related to developmental investment by companies, such as research and development grants, support for upskilling, etc. Such a policy does not extend to providing the type of support sought by the company in this case.

The effects of globalisation are felt in even the smallest markets and global competition will intensify and extend its reach. The Government has recognised the inevitable changes taking place across world markets for both trade and investment. Enterprise policies aimed at equipping companies with the ability to compete better in world markets, capture the opportunities from globalisation and build competitive advantage in innovation and knowledge have been central to policy development. The best response to globalisation is to ensure that Ireland remains attractive for investment and enterprise growth. Our attractions include a competitive tax and regulatory environment, a well-educated workforce, a rapidly improving infrastructure and a commitment to world-class standards of research, development and innovation. Maintaining and improving upon these standards is vital to sustaining Ireland's competitiveness.

While it has not been possible to accede to the company's request for support in this case, the Government believes that there is a solid future for a restructured Waterford Crystal operation in Ireland and asks that the board of Waterford Wedgwood, its management and staff work together to agree such financial and other measures as are necessary for the successful implementation of the restructuring plan. Any request or proposal from the company for aid for new investment will be considered sympathetically by the enterprise development agencies as appropriate. I am confident the strategies and policies being pursued by the State development agencies will continue to support enterprise development and job creation in the Waterford area.

Social Welfare Appeals.

Deputy John O’Mahony

I wish to share time with Deputy Durkan. I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise the case of one of my constituents. My constituent was refused the respite care grant for the 2006-07 period, despite the existence of incontrovertible medical evidence from two family doctors. This case was previously raised by Deputies Kenny and Durkan.

The constituent to whom I refer cares for his 83-year-old mother, who requires full-time care, and his brother, who is a cancer patient. As my constituent provides constant care to his mother and brother, he is unable to take up employment. I am familiar with this case and I have good reason to believe that the evidence provided by my constituent at the oral hearing relating to the case did not represent an accurate account of the level of care he provides to his family. The man in question was extremely nervous and did not relate the real story. He appealed the decision to refuse the respite care grant but this appeal was rejected.

My constituent is under considerable stress as a result of being obliged to care for his mother and brother, while being unable to earn a full-time living from work. He has been on medication due to this difficult situation and the level of stress that results from it. Two family doctors have volunteered to provide oral medical evidence to illustrate the true nature of his situation and his commitment to his mother and his brother. By caring for his mother and his brother in this manner, my constituent is saving the State a great deal of money. It is mean and penny-pinching that he should be denied the respite care grant.

I earnestly urge the Minister to have this case re-examined and referred for a further oral hearing in order that justice might be done in this most deserving case. I would appreciate if the necessary arrangements could be made for the oral hearing to be held.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I thank Deputy O'Mahony for sharing time. I am glad to be able to support his call in respect of this matter, which I raised on the Adjournment some time ago. I compliment the Minister on coming before the House to reply to this matter. That is a dying practice among her colleagues nowadays.

As a caring person, the Minister will be more aware than others of what is involved where a person is obliged to care for his 83-year-old mother and another relative who is suffering from cancer. I would not have found it extraordinary if there had been a disqualification in respect of one of the patients in this case. It is amazing, however, that both patients were disqualified, one on the grounds of not being in need of care — even though she is 83 years of age — and the other on the grounds that the carer was not entirely occupied. The fact is that the carer could not leave the family home. He was obliged to spend all of his time there caring for his mother and brother. If the man in question were working outside the home — which he could do — the carees would have to be placed in institutional care, which would result in a cost on the State.

I urge the Minister to order a further oral hearing to ensure that the case is fully and properly heard. My comments are not a reflection on those responsible for hearing the case on the previous occasion. Rather they are designed to give the appellant an opportunity to state the case again, notwithstanding the fact that the decisions have already been made.

Minister for Social and Family Affairs (Deputy Mary Hanafin)

I thank both Deputies for raising this issue. Eligibility for respite care grant was originally confined to people in receipt of certain primary social welfare payments, who received it automatically. Such people continue to do so.

In the 2005 budget, eligibility for the respite care grant was extended to include all carers irrespective of means or contribution record but subject to certain statutory conditions. The main conditions for receipt of respite care grant are that the person or persons in respect of whom the application is made must require full-time care and attention and that the applicant must be providing such care and attention. The legislation provides that a person is regarded as requiring full-time care and attention where they require continual supervision and frequent assistance throughout the day in connection with normal bodily functions or to avoid danger to themselves.

The person to whom the Deputies refer submitted an application for a respite care grant on 25 July 2007 in respect of his mother and brother. With regard to the applicant's brother, the deciding officer refused the application as the application form indicated that the care being given was in the nature of help around the house and farm, which does not constitute the kind of care and attention envisaged by the legislation.

With regard to the applicant's mother, the application was refused on the grounds that her condition is not such that she requires the level of care envisaged by the legislation. The deciding officer based this decision on the advice of the Department's medical assessors, who reviewed all the medical evidence submitted by her general practitioner. Also, with regard to the applicant's mother, the deciding officer was not satisfied that the level of care he was providing was consistent with that envisaged in the respite care grant legislation.

The above decisions were appealed to the social welfare appeals office. The appeals officer, who is independent in coming to a decision, examined all the evidence submitted, including that produced at an oral hearing, and upheld the decision of the deciding officer. The decision of the appeals officer is final and conclusive under the legislation and may only be altered in the light of new facts or fresh evidence not already presented.

As we are now into the new year of 2008, the respite care grant scheme runs into this year. Deputy O'Mahony stated the applicant had not given the full picture on the original application. I suggest the applicant should make a new application under the 2008 respite care grant scheme for this year.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

Will it be applied retrospectively?

Grant Payments.

Deputy Michael Creed

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to raise the closing date of 15 May for applications to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for benefit under the single farm payment scheme, the disadvantaged areas scheme, REPS, the energy crop scheme and protein crop scheme. This might well be one of the shortest contributions on an Adjournment debate but it will probably be one of the more important this year with regard to the agricultural community.

I have in my possession documentation from the Department, SPS document 08. The official Department document states, "Please note the closing date for submission of 2008 applications and supporting documentation is 31 May 2008." I will give that personally to the Minister, whom I am delighted to see in the Chamber.

The reason I raise this matter is that the value of single farm payments, as a result of their defined nature, is declining year on year in real terms. We have now seen modulation proposals from the CAP reform. It is simply unacceptable for any farmer to lose a percentage of his payment by virtue of submitting a late application. The Minister knows as well as I and any representative of a rural constituency the pressure under which Teagasc offices and independent agricultural consultants worked over the past weeks when trying to get the maximum number of applications in by 15 May. Significant effort was made. I am sure the Minister will tell me tonight that of possibly 130,000 applications, the vast majority have been submitted.

There was conflicting advice on official Department documentation, as well as an almost impossible deadline for agriculture consultants, Teagasc and otherwise, to meet — 15 May. I reiterate that the conflicting documentation states clearly, "Please note the closing date for submission of 2008 applications and supporting documentation is 31 May 2008."

I ask the Minister to address this in the interests of farmers and to ensure nobody suffers an undue penalty. There is a 1% penalty per day on late application up to the end of May. In order to ensure nobody suffers an undue penalty and loss of income in difficult times, given the small number of applications concerned, I ask the Minister to accept that all applications received in the Department after 15 May and up to the end of this month should be documented and approved for full payment without penalty.

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith)

I thank the Deputy for raising the issue. I am happy to assure the House that the procedures operated by my Department during the application period for the submission of the 2008 single farm payment forms worked extremely well. In all, over 99.5% of all applications were submitted on time by farmers either by post, the Department's electronic on-line system or by delivering them to one of the Department's local offices.

The Deputy will be aware that for a number of years, my Department has adopted the practice of pre-printing data on the personalised applications automatically provided to scheme applicants in order to simplify the application process for farmers. The huge benefit of this service is that those applicants whose farming circumstances do not change from one year to the next simply have to check the pre-printed data and, being satisfied as to its accuracy, sign and submit the form to my Department. It should be noted that in excess of two thirds of applications each year fall into this "no change" category.

My Department is constantly looking for ways to improve the system of submission of applications forms by farmers. An on-line application facility for the single payment scheme was introduced on a pilot basis for the 2007 scheme, which was very well received by farmers. While the number received on-line under the 2007 scheme was a very respectable 7,500, I am very pleased to inform the House that the number submitted on-line under the 2008 scheme has risen to 19,500 — almost a threefold increase. This increase, which is very welcome, is evidence of the benefits which farmers and their advisers see in the on-line facility.

When choosing a closing date for the 2008 scheme, my Department had to be very mindful of the fact that, for the first time, applicants under the rural environment protection scheme had to observe the SPS closing date. Applicants under a variety of other schemes, including the disadvantaged areas scheme, the energy crops scheme, the farm waste management scheme and the new suckler welfare scheme, among many others, are also obliged to submit single payment applications. Therefore, it was decided to set the closing date at the latest allowed under the EU rules. Under the relevant EU regulations, there is no possibility of extending this deadline.

Specifically with regard to the closing date under the 2008 scheme, the following additional measures were taken by my Department to ensure that the message regarding the closing date received the widest possible publicity. In addition to the press release of 2 May reminding farmers of the upcoming deadline and advising them to submit their forms if they had not already done so, emphasising that there was no possibility of an extension, and the placing of an advertisement in the farming press setting out a similar message, my Department took the following action on the matter. A note highlighting the closing date was e-mailed to all local radio stations with a request that they publicise the deadline in their agricultural programmes and their community notices. An information note was issued to all agriculture agents by e-mail. The Department also made contact with the management of An Post and asked them to ensure that all post addressed to the single payment unit in Portlaoise was delivered promptly last week. A further press release was issued on 12 May. We also worked with the farming press with a view to publishing articles highlighting the need to submit an application by 15 May 2008.

In addition, I decided to keep all 47 Department local offices open until 9 p.m. on Thursday, 15 May, while the main single payment scheme office in Portlaoise remained open through lunchtime to facilitate callers. The Agfood.ie helpdesk, which deals exclusively with on-line issues from farmers and agents, remained open until 12 midnight on the closing day, an out-of-hours service having also been available in the days prior to the closing date.

I am fully satisfied that the campaign initiated by my Department was entirely successful, as is clearly illustrated by the high level of applications submitted by farmers by the deadline of 15 May 2008. While, as in all walks of life, some applications were submitted after the deadline, it is interesting to note that the numbers received late in 2008 are broadly in line with the numbers received late — approximately 0.5% — under the 2007 scheme and earlier years. The vast majority of these will be subject only to a 1% late reduction penalty.

If Deputy Creed gives me the documentation referred to earlier I will have the matter investigated.

Fisheries Protection.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

I thank the Minister for being here to respond. My matter relates to fisheries in the Cromane Bay, particularly Castlemaine Harbour. On Tuesday of last week, the draft netsmen had a licence to go fishing. At 5 p.m. on Monday of last week, they received notification that they could proceed to fish. However, the South Western Regional Fisheries Board received an e-mail from the Minister at 8 p.m. on that day, announcing that he intended to introduce a by-law to stop them from fishing. When I raised this matter last week with the Taoiseach, who has said he wants to get business done in a proper fashion, I asked him whether this was an example of the best way to do business. The netsmen thought they would be able to go fishing on Tuesday, but by Wednesday morning a by-law had been introduced to prevent them doing so. The Taoiseach said he understood that the Minister had introduced the by-law on the basis of scientific information. I have the information in question in front of me. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Minister has made this change.

The three rivers in question are the Caragh, the Laune and the Maine. I accept that there is a problem with salmon stocks on the River Maine. I have seen a map, which forms part of the scientific evidence on the basis of which the Minister made his decision. A line on the map represents an avenue used by salmon to get to the River Maine. In no way does it represent an interference with the journey of the salmon to the River Maine. Last year's surplus for the River Caragh was 1,121. The conservation limit was 531. One does not have to be great at mathematics to realise there was a surplus of approximately 600. The surplus on the River Laune last year was 7,265 salmon. There is a draft net quota for 6,166 salmon. However, the Minister will not allow the draft men to fish. I am in favour of the anglers being able to catch salmon with their tags, etc. I believe they can live in harmony given that there was a surplus last year of 7,265 and a draft net quota of 6,166. It must be admitted that those figures emerged as a consequence of the abolition of drift net fishing. When one has a conservation limit, and there is a quota of 7,265 above that, those salmon can be caught by private licence holders but not by commercial licence holders. I cannot understand why such discrimination exists.

I have a big problem with one of the people advising the Minister. The person in question, who is on the Central Fisheries Board, went to the High Court recently to claim that he owns the River Caragh. He lost the case. He is one of the many people on the Central Fisheries Board who is advising the Minister. He has a conflict of interest, which is not right or proper. It is not the proper fashion in which to do business, as the Taoiseach might say.

The Laune and Caragh rivers have had a surplus since 2006 and 2007, respectively, as a consequence of the abolition of drift netting. I believe that angling and draft fishing can live in harmony. I ask the Minister to rescind his by-law. I understand that the matter is to be raised in the High Court next Friday. I do not think it should go that far.

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Eamon Ryan)

Under the Fisheries Acts, primary responsibility for the management, conservation, protection and development of inland fisheries stocks rests with the Central Fisheries Board and the relevant regional fisheries boards. I remind Deputy Sheahan that the South Western Regional Fisheries Board — not the Central Fisheries Board — is responsible for the fisheries in the Cork and Kerry fishery districts. The Kerry district includes Cromane Bay, which was referred to by the Deputy. I assume he was speaking about the location where the sea comes into Castlemaine Harbour at Dingle Bay, County Kerry. My function in the management of wild salmon fishery is to introduce the wild salmon and sea trout tagging scheme regulations that specify, inter alia, which rivers have a harvestable surplus according to the management and scientific advice. I have signed an array of salmon conservation by-laws determining the conditions under which wild salmon can be harvested during the season.

On 23 April 2008, the South Western Regional Fisheries Board circulated proposals on how it intended to manage the Kerry fishery district in 2008. It was indicated that the fishery in Castlemaine Harbour should be opened on a restricted basis, with special conditions that included an obligation on fishermen to provide scale samples of all fish caught for analysis to determine the river stock to which they belong. Since 2006, the Government's policy has been to adhere to the scientific advice and to manage for conservation rather than for catch. In that context, when I received the board's proposals, I sought the advice of the standing scientific committee of the National Salmon Commission. The scientific advice I received, generally speaking, is that the harvest of fish should be contained to estuaries and rivers which are meeting their conservation limits. In the case of bays into which two or more rivers flow, the standing scientific committee, in specifying the available surplus for harvest, requires that all rivers meet their conservation limits. If it is the case that harvest is going to take place on the mixed stock, an appropriate reduction of the available surplus is made. The Maine and Behy rivers, two of the rivers that flow into Castlemaine Harbour, are not meeting their conservation limits.

I am mindful of the advice of the standing scientific committee that mixed stock fisheries pose a particular threat to the attainment of conservation limits in all rivers. In this regard, a fishery operating in Castlemaine Harbour outside of the river estuaries must be considered a mixed stock fishery as it is potentially exploiting fish from each of the rivers which flow into the harbour. I advised the board that I did not regard the arrangements, which were identified as being in accordance with the Government decision on the management of the fishery, to be in compliance with the scientific advice. The prosecution of a fishery in the common estuary of Castlemaine Harbour is not provided for in schedule 4 of the wild salmon and sea trout tagging scheme regulations. In interpreting the regulations, it is my view that the precautionary principle must be adhered to. Therefore, no harvest of fish should compromise stocks which are identified as failing to meet conservation limits.

It is vital to afford every protection to the remaining salmon stocks and to clearly prioritise conservation over catch. We must fulfil our obligation under the habitats directive to maintain or restore fish stocks to favourable conservation status. To add further legal clarity to the matter, I introduced by-law No. 832 of 2008 which prohibits the taking of salmon and trout by all means, including draft net, rod and line, in the waters of Castlemaine Harbour, the common estuary of the Behy, Caragh, Laune and Maine rivers, between Inch and Rosbehy points. Any delay in restoring the commercial fishery can only assist in the recovery of those stocks which are not meeting their conservation limits, thereby providing the opportunity for a sustainable fishery in the future. I have asked the South Western Regional Fisheries Board to ensure that appropriate surveys are repeated to the satisfaction of the scientists to establish with certainty the status of stocks in the Behy and Maine rivers.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.40 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 22 May 2008.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 21 May 2008