I wish to point out that 30 minutes is provided for Priority Questions, six minutes for each priority question as follows: two minutes for the Minister's initial reply and four minutes overall for supplementary questions and replies. The Chair is obliged to stick to those regulations.
Priority Questions.
Farm Retirement Scheme.
Michael Creed
Ceist:62 Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in the context of the suspension of the early retirement scheme and the young farmers installation aid scheme, he proposes to make concessions to would-be applicants under those schemes who have entered into legally binding and irrevocable commitments arising from their clear intention to submit valid applications under both of those schemes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44381/08]
The 2009 budget was prepared against the background of a serious deterioration in the national finances. The limited resources available meant that difficult choices had to be made between competing demands.
My priority in preparing the 2009 Estimates for my Department was to focus available resources on the measures that allow us to maintain and grow the productive capacity of the agrifood sector. The 2009 Estimates provide over €1.8 billion for my Department and, when combined with EU funding of €1.4 billion, that means total expenditure in 2009 by my Department will amount to more than €3.2 billion.
In regard to the early retirement scheme and the young farmers installation aid scheme, all fully completed applications received by the Department up to and including 14 October 2008 will be processed and, if they are in order, payment will be made. An allocation of €56.7 million has been made for 2009 to meet current commitments under the scheme of early retirement from farming and the young farmers installation aid scheme, but, for the present, it has been necessary to suspend new applications for those schemes.
While difficult decisions had to be taken in light of the public finances, account also had to be taken of the high level of investment by the Government in recent years, when significant additional financial resources were committed to areas such as the rural environment protection scheme, where the rates of grant had been increased by 17%, the new suckler cow welfare scheme, the farm waste management scheme and an 8% increase in rates under the disadvantaged areas scheme introduced in 2007.
I have no plans at present to re-open the young farmers installation aid scheme and the early retirement scheme to new applications, but the limiting of the suspension of the scheme will be considered at the earliest opportunity having regard to the general budgetary situation.
I have no interest in having a dialogue of the deaf with the Minister. We must try to make progress on the issue. I would like if the Minister would agree to open the scheme immediately. I have no doubt that if the times were better financially the Minister would agree to do that, but there is a category of people in respect of both the installation aid scheme and the early retirement scheme who have entered into legally irrevocable contracts and who, through no fault of their own, are now in a difficult situation. We would all like to see the scheme re-open for everybody, but in those exceptional circumstances will the Department look favourably on those individual would-be applicants?
I indicated to Deputy Creed previously when we met to discuss those issues and in reply to a previous parliamentary question that people whose applications were significantly progressed at the time entry to the schemes were suspended are a priority for me and will be a priority when we start processing and revisiting that decision. That is a view shared by all of us who represent rural areas and who are familiar with individuals and families who had started the preparatory work but who had not completed or lodged their applications with the Department prior to budget day. I am aware from public representatives such as from the Members present and other colleagues on both sides of the House, and from the farming organisations, all of whom spoke to me about the matter, that a number of applications now stand suspended that were almost ready on budget day.
I have stated repeatedly in the House and in response to councillors, representatives of various farming organisations and in the media that it is my intention to revisit my decision to suspend entry to the schemes as soon as circumstances permit. All of us who deal with representations from rural communities fully appreciate that a considerable amount of effort goes into the completion of a valid application. In the case of installation aid, young farmers went into considerable detail to meet the specific requirements of the scheme. I understand that at times the delay in lodging applications may have been outside an applicant's power. I am conscious of that but I do not want to mislead anybody. I am not in a position at this time to say when we will be able to progress those particular applicants who had set out on the road to complete an application. I assure Deputy Creed that those applicants will be the first to have their applications processed when it is possible to re-open the schemes.
I am disappointed with the Minister's response because I referred to a handful of applicants where there is clear evidence of a delay in probate or the Revenue stamping deeds and leases.
Has the Minister received any legal advice on the vulnerability of the Department to a legal challenge following the suspension of the scheme? It would appear that the principle of legitimate expectation would apply and the Department has been at the receiving end of a judgment in that respect previously.
The scheme was suspended due to budgetary constraints and that remains the position. Adequate provision has been made in the 2009 Estimates to meet all applications that were duly authorised and authenticated that reached the Department by budget day, should they be approved. I hope they all meet the criteria. I accept some people who had started to prepare their applications had gone quite a distance but, from some of the representations received by the Department, a number of the cases brought to my attention were by and large in the early stages. As Deputy Creed indicated, we all know of applications that were nearing completion and I would like to advance them as soon as possible.
Sheep Sector.
Sean Sherlock
Ceist:63 Deputy Seán Sherlock asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will deliver on his commitment to the sheep sector in view of the fact that the industry is in serious trouble and that the health check provides him with the flexibility and scope to make a sheep maintenance payment out of unspent single payment funds; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44090/08]
The possibility of support to the sheep sector will be considered in the light of the outcome of the recent CAP health check. That outcome provides that an additional amount of some €24 million annually will be available to Irish farmers from 2010 onwards. That amount may be used to target specific sectors in need of assistance and represents money that would otherwise not be available to farmers due to the complex rules surrounding the single farm payment. Support may commence in 2009 by utilising funds from the national reserve, which are expected to be in the region of €6 million to €7 million, and those will be supplemented from 2010 with the unspent single farm payment funds.
As I indicated following the completion of the health check, I will consult relevant stakeholders as to how the additional funds can best be spent. To that end, I will meet with them on 16 December to consider their views and possible options. It is, perhaps, worth repeating what I said in this House last night when I reiterated my concern for the sheep sector in particular and acknowledged that it is a sector that needs support. It is a priority sector and will, no doubt, feature prominently at my meeting with the farm organisations on 16 December to consider how best to spend the additional funding secured in the health check.
By way of preamble I draw attention to how the Minister's language has shifted considerably from the statement in Limoges where he said that the sector "should be a priority for any unused funds within the CAP budget". Last night he indicated: "I wanted to ensure that the changes in the health check initiative will open the possibility for some useful action." Now the Minister is stating that he "may" use some of the €24 million fund to support the sheep sector. What the farmers who are protesting on Kildare Street want to know is whether the fund will be used. Will the Minister give a definitive commitment that he will honour the statement that was made at the conference in Limoges? Given that the Minister has committed to meeting representatives of the sector, will he move the date of 16 December forward given that the farmers are protesting outside Leinster House? It would be courteous if the Minister committed to meeting them earlier than 16 December.
On the Deputy's question on the EU conference in France in early September, people who listen to us participated actively and constructively at the meeting. At the conference, I outlined that the sheep sector needed assistance at EU level. For once, the British Government and the Irish one were on the same wavelength on an agriculture issue. The British Minister participated, as did the French Minister, Michel Barnier, acting President of the Council of Agriculture Ministers, and the Ministers from Spain and Romania. We were the only Ministers representing Governments of member states at the conference.
I made several points at the conference, one of which was that the challenges in the sheep sector throughout the European Union required an EU-wide response. There are unspent funds within the Irish CAP allocation and there are also unused CAP funds at EU level. I argued that we should not only try to obtain access to our own unspent funds, such that we could use them to our own benefit as we see fit, but that we should also try to secure an EU-wide response. I argued that some of the substantial fund that is unused within the CAP budget of the 27 member states should be diverted to the sheep sector. However, the European Union will not agree to that. One would need the agreement of the 27 member states.
If Deputy Sherlock wants to read any of my statements or listen to any of the interviews I gave, he will note that I stated clearly, as I did last night, today and at the meeting organised by the IFA in Tullamore on the morning when the CAP health check negotiations were completed, that the sheep sector needs help. I stated at the meeting in Tullamore that "I want to ensure that the changes in the health check open the possibility for some useful action in the sheep sector." I have repeated that since and am looking forward to a constructive meeting with the farm organisations on 16 December. That is the first date available because of long-standing commitments in the Dáil and elsewhere, including foreign locations, over the next two weeks. I have no doubt that the organisations at the meeting will put forward very strong, well-supported cases on the sheep sector based on their concerns and ideas.
Is the Minister now telling us he cannot commit the unspent CAP funds to the sheep sector? Will he respond with a "Yes" or a "No"?
As Deputy Sherlock knows——
On a point of order, there are people outside this building who are awaiting the answer to that question. They are either labouring under a misapprehension regarding the Minister's statements or they are not. Did the Minister make a commitment that he would allocate unused CAP funds to the sheep sector?
That was not a point of order. I ask the Minister to be brief.
I assure Deputy Sherlock that I have been entirely consistent on this issue.
With all due respect to the Minister, he is shifting his position.
I have not shifted my position. Not one comma in any of my statements on the sheep sector has been shifted.
There is a subtle shift.
What is the consultation about in that case?
Is the answer to my question "Yes" or "No"?
I just want to state the facts. I have been entirely consistent. I said at the IFA meeting at Tullamore, where I was criticised for not making a commitment, that I made a commitment to seeking to gain access to the unused funds. I stated I wanted to ensure the changes in the CAP health check would open the possibility for some useful action in the sheep sector. I stated at the meeting that if we were successful at the health check negotiations, I would return to the farming organisations to talk to them. Ten minutes after the conclusion of the negotiations, I repeated this. That is what I am doing. The date is set for a meeting and the farm organisations have been invited to attend. I have no doubt that, in their capacity as strong advocates, they will be able to reiterate their point of view. My position has not changed one iota.
Deputy Sherlock knows that if one invites representatives to engage in consultation, one does not make a decision before consulting them.
The Minister should just answer the question.
I have total respect for the people I have invited to the meeting.
EU Funding.
Michael Creed
Ceist:64 Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the way he proposes to allocate to farmers funding accruing to his Department arising from the 5% reduction in the single farm payment as approved by him in negotiations on the CAP; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44382/08]
The agreed rates of additional modulation will generate approximately €120 million in total over the four years from 2009 to 2012 in transfers from the single farm payment to rural development. As I have previously made clear, these additional funds will stay in Ireland and be passed back to Irish farmers under the rural development programme.
In line with the new regulations they must be used for measures to address the so-called new challenges associated with climate change, water management, bio-energy and biodiversity, dairy restructuring and innovation. I will consult stakeholders widely as to how these funds can best be used for the development of Irish agriculture.
I understood there was an obligation on the State to match modulated funds exactly. What amount of matching State funding will the Department provide? What are the schemes he envisages financing? When will we see the application forms and the detail in respect thereof?
Our national contribution in respect of the rural development programme far exceeds our national requirement. These new measures will probably serve as an addendum to the existing programme. Our co-financing obligation——
This is not devoted to rural development per se but to the agriculture budget.
Absolutely. There may be a perception that the funds will be allocated for some rural development measures beyond the farm gate but this is not true. The modulated funds will be allocated for on-farm activities. The scheme or schemes we will propose to the Commission for approval will have to be linked to the new challenges of climate change, achieving biodiversity and water management. A scheme could involve an additional REPS measure. A grassland premium scheme, which may in some instances refer to under-grazing or over-grazing of land, could be considered. There is a measure that can be considered in regard to dairy restructuring. A number of schemes can be proposed but the basic requirement is that they address the new challenges of protecting the environment, enhancing biodiversity and tackling climate change. I assure the House that all the funding will be allocated directly for on-farm activities and not to Leader type programmes or programmes that would operate beyond the farm gate.
All farmers will be hit by the modulation proposals but only farmers who apply to participate in the schemes envisaged by the Department will recoup the funding. I want a specific answer to my specific question on the additional State funding required to match the modulated fund.
With the level of modulation coming in at present, we would have to put our proposal to Brussels. The decision on whether our co-financing is adequate will be made there. The current national Exchequer contribution to our rural development programme substantially exceeds the EU requirement.
We will put forward our particular programme to Brussels when we have completed consultation in respect of a scheme, or schemes. For example, if we wished to extend the REPS programme or to introduce an animal welfare measure that might be linked directly to new challenges, we would have to put forward those proposals to Brussels for clearance. Of our farmers, 50,000 will not be affected by modulation because they are below the single payment rate where modulation applies.
Common Agricultural Policy.
Sean Sherlock
Ceist:65 Deputy Seán Sherlock asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food his views on whether he has secured a good deal for Irish farmers under the CAP; the benefits to the farming sector here from the deal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44091/08]
I am satisfied that I have secured a very good deal for Irish farmers in the recent health check negotiations. The deal is worth €70 million in additional payments to farmers over the coming years. In addition, the increase in milk quota will deliver €100 million worth of additional milk production in 2014. This is enormously positive for the sector and, although there are elements in the package I do not like, such as increased modulation, I am satisfied that this will not lead to any loss to Irish farmers.
The main aspects of the deal that are of interest to Ireland are that milk quotas will be increased by 1% per annum for each of the next five years and, in addition, an adjustment in the butterfat reference will mean the equivalent of an extra 2% in milk quota for Ireland next year. Two reviews of the market situation are planned, by December 2010 and by December 2012.
Due to our additional production potential, Ireland will benefit greatly from these changes. If the 2% quota increase already in place for 2008 is included, an additional 500 million litres of milk will be produced in Ireland when these changes come into effect. This was an outstanding achievement, given the alignment of forces on the Council of Ministers. I am particularly pleased that our farmers and processors now have policy clarity and can plan their investments with a greater degree of certainty about the future.
With regard to market support schemes, the system of intervention for butter and skimmed milk powder is to remain unchanged and the private storage aid mechanism for butter remains in place. A determined effort was made to introduce tendering for every tonne of butter and skimmed milk powder intervened. This would have been particularly difficult for Ireland given our seasonal pattern of production and therefore it was very important to secure the continuation of intervention buying-in for the first 30,000 tonnes of butter and 109,000 tonnes of skimmed milk powder at the fixed price. This was equally true for butter private storage aid where current arrangements were maintained, despite efforts to introduce tendering. In essence, the key market management mechanisms that are most important to Ireland have been left completely unchanged.
I was successful also in obtaining the option of using funds from the national reserve together with unused moneys from the single payment funds allocated annually to Ireland to target at specific vulnerable sectors. A sum of €7 million is available annually in the national reserve and I secured agreement to use these funds with effect from 2009. Under the final agreement, we will have access to additional funds of the order of €24 million annually from unspent funds from 2010, with the possibility for increasing that figure.
The funds can be used to address specific economic disadvantages affecting farmers in the dairy, beef and veal, sheep and goat and rice sectors. I persuaded the Commission to expand the scope of these measures to include economically vulnerable sectors, irrespective of their geographical location. We need to consider carefully how these funds can best be used for the development of Irish farming in the context of the options available under the new regulation. No decisions have been taken yet but I am acutely aware of the difficulties in certain sectors and I will be consulting widely with all stakeholders on this issue in the coming weeks.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
In this regard I have already said that I would welcome proposals from interested parties.
I was also able to progress the simplification agenda in the health check negotiations. We got rid of the requirement to deduct modulation from the full payment due to the farmer and subsequently refund that element relating to the first €5,000. We also succeeded in abolishing the requirement for compulsory set-aside and this will do away with the complex associated management rules. In addition, the restriction on the transfer of national reserve entitlements is to be removed and the usage and "use it or lose it rules" have been simplified. Simplifications were made also to the cross-compliance and good agricultural and environment condition provisions. Most importantly, I got an unambiguous commitment from the Council of Ministers and the Commission to continue the simplification process.
With regard to modulation, the rate has been increased by 5%. I would have preferred if no additional modulation had been agreed. However, this was one element of the negotiations on which Commissioner Fischer Boel was particularly determined. I am satisfied that we succeeded in getting the rate of additional modulation considerably reduced from the original proposals. It is worth noting that over 50,000 Irish farmers will be exempt from this increase. I can confirm that there will be a budget-neutral effect in respect of the 70,000 farmers affected by the change as I have ensured that all the funds raised can be passed straight back to Irish farmers.
Will the Minister clarify whether the original ratio in the rural development package was to be 50:50 between EU funding and Exchequer funding? In the event of Exchequer funding being at 25%, will the Government commit to that funding in light of the new modulation or the Common Agricultural Policy health check package?
I assure Deputy Sherlock that we are considerably in excess of the EU requirement. My understanding is that we will continue to be so, even with the new programme. If the need arises we will discuss that matter with Europe.
During recent years our Exchequer has been fortunate in that we have able to put much more funding from national resources into schemes that are partially funded by the European Union. The ratio in some instances is more than 50% of Irish money against the percentage of EU funding.
I welcome the Minister's statement in terms of the commitment on modulation and how it is to be ringfenced within agriculture. That is vitally important and is something I have raised with the Minister previously. There should be no leakage of that commitment into other sectors, or into non-governmental, community and voluntary pillars. That is essential.
Does the Minister not agree that the €170 million package delivered by the CAP will be delivered by farmers themselves? The 1% increase in quota will effectively come down to the farmer who gets up every day to milk more cows. The Minister is overselling the package somewhat. It was widely thought that the 1% increases in quota were coming down the track in any event.
Will the Minister explain the €70 million that is in the balance? Some €100 million will be provided for additional milk production and there is an extra €70 million. Will the Minister clarify how this extra sum will be designated?
I assure the Deputy that large member states such as France and Germany were totally opposed to any increase in milk quota. We got the butterfat adjustment which is the equivalent of a 2% increase which is very important also. All of us who speak to dairy farmers will talk of their frustration when the calculation is made with regard to butterfat. It lifts up delivery levels as such.
I was in the Deputy's constituency recently and spoke to individual farmers there who are very anxious to get additional milk quotas. A number commented that this is the first time, to their knowledge, as it is to mine, that we succeeded in getting the butterfat adjustment. Over the next few years, the increase in quotas amounts almost to 10%, calculating the value of the milk quota at the present poor levels that unfortunately pertain in the dairy industry. This is an issue of concern to all of us who are involved in the sector, particularly to dairy farmers and the pressures they experienced this year. We hope that the value will increase and that this sum of €100 million will prove a conservative estimate rather than a real one in the next year or two. We hope that dairy prices will increase by then.
With regard to the €70 million mentioned by Deputy Sherlock, the calculation is arrived at, roughly, by the €24 million unspent and by our being able to use the national reserve funds that we cannot use at present. These are worth €6 million to €7 million on an annual basis.
Fisheries Protection.
Tom Sheahan
Ceist:66 Deputy Tom Sheahan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has quantified the social and economic implications of the proposed cuts in quota and total allowable catch prior to the December 2008 Council of Fisheries Ministers meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44092/08]
The very poor state of many whitefish stocks targeted by the Irish fishing fleet is clearly reflected in the decreases in annual total allowable catch, TAC, and quota allocations that Ireland receives, and in the landings of the fishing fleet over the past decade. The levels of TAC and, ultimately, the quotas for Ireland are determined each year at the December Fisheries Council following negotiations with member states and the EU Commission. The process for 2009 has already begun in earnest with the publication of the Commission's proposals which will be subject of detailed and protracted discussions over the coming weeks. This Commission proposal sets out cuts in many of the stocks of economic importance to our fleet and also envisages other measures which will adversely impact on our fishing industry, including a proposed closure for the whitefish fleet off the north west.
However, not all stocks are subject to decreases in TACs with the mackerel TAC going up by 33%——
How will the Minister of State allocate that?
——from 456,000 tonnes in 2008 to 605,000 tonnes in 2009. This will result in the net Irish quota, after deductions for the payback for undeclared Scottish landings, going from approximately 45,000 tonnes to 62,000 tonnes. However, this TAC increase remains to be formally agreed and must be protected against any proposal that a part would be transferred to Norway in the EU negotiations with Norway which are currently ongoing.
This hugely significant increase is the reward for Irish fishermen adopting tough responsible fishing practices for this stock. In value terms, using an estimated price per tonne of €1,200, this results in an increase of over €20 million to the pelagic fishing sector in 2009, from €54 million to €74.4 million.
Notwithstanding the good news on mackerel, I am concerned with the level of cuts proposed for the whitefish stocks, the proposed closure in the north west as well as other measures proposed and their socio-economic impact on fishermen and fishing communities. I can assure the Deputy I am actively engaged, as are our officials, in delivering the best possible deal for Ireland and there will be many long days and late nights in the upcoming negotiations before a settlement is reached on the final package of measures.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The reality is, however, that we will experience cuts in some stocks though the actual level of these cuts has yet to be determined. In that regard I expect that the downwards rebalancing of our whitefish fleet fishing capacity as a result of the current decommissioning scheme, which is permanently removing fishing vessels from the whitefish fleet, will help offset quota reductions. The objective of the current decommissioning scheme is to deliver an efficient, effective and viable fishing fleet capable of supporting a vibrant coastal community into the future.
This economic lift comes from the redistribution of the whitefish and prawn catch previously taken by the vessels being decommissioned which is currently estimated at some €22 million. This will, over the next five years result in up to €110 million in additional catching opportunities for those boats that remain.
Decommissioning was primarily intended to benefit the owners and skippers who remain in the fleet rather than those who leave and I am confident they will see the benefit of this policy.
We shall do something about the overtime claims as regards those long days and nights the Minister of State refers to. We shall get the overtime sheets for him.
That will not be necessary.
For a long time, I was wondering whether the Minister of State was going to answer the question. He was just getting to it when the Acting Chairman intervened. At last week's Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, it was stated, as regards box 6A and the total ban on whitefish fishing — cod, haddock etc. — that there was inadequate scientific evidence. When the Minister of State goes to Europe, will he be fighting this proposal? In the event, on what grounds will he be fighting? We have had part decommissioning which I understood to mean fewer boats and more fish for each boat. If we are to close fisheries such as this, will there be another round of decommissioning?
The fishermen in the Celtic Sea, in the south and south-east coast, close the fishery for cod and white fish during the spawning season. Why has this not been tried in box 6, rather than having a full blanket ban on it? If box 6A is closed, I imagine that those who are fishing whitefish in that area will then move to the Celtic Sea, and that will be fished out. No measures have been put in place to save this fishery. All of a sudden it has been decided to close it. This has been tried before in different fisheries. Funnily enough, either on legal grounds or whatever, when these matters were taken to court, the Minister was defeated in different fisheries.
We know of the consequences for the Lisbon treaty because of the way fishermen had been treated. However, as regards the consequences of this, I should have preferred if more proactive measures had been introduced over a number of years rather than a full blanket ban.
There is now only time for a response from the Minister of State.
I shall do my best. I wanted to respond to Deputy Sheahan as the Department and the Minister of State, Deputy Tony Killeen, have been in constant contact with the Federation of Irish Fishermen as regards working on a joint proposal to the Commission, because we are, as the Deputy said, concerned. I gave a fuller answer in this regard in an Adjournment debate, but we are conscious of the adverse impact on our fleet of the proposed closure in the north-west area. I believe the Commission has not undertaken normal consultation with the industry either through the regional advisory councils or by way of socio-economic evaluation. Therefore we need to work closely with the industry so that we may suggest other measures to help protect these stocks, while having reduced impact on the fleet. For example, we are looking at a revision of the areas of Celtic Sea cod that would reduce Ireland's quota in areas off the south and west coast and give us quota elsewhere where we do not fish. That is where the Commission is, unfortunately, at variance with us because of the new totally allowable catch and quotas for skate and ray, for example, which we are only allowed to fish as a by-catch. We have important directed fisheries for this stock and we do not see the scientific justification for such revision or for reduced catch and also a cut in the total allowable catch and quota around our coast. We do not see the scientific advice which supports this cut as many of the stocks are in good order.
The global discard situation, which is quite scandalous in terms of the amount of fish that is essentially wasted — some 20 million tonnes per year——
What good is consultation there?
——seems to be driving much of the panic, I would say, within the Commission to carry out measures that will not be helpful, as the Deputy rightly said. We have a job to do and I hope that, between the federation and Members on all sides of the House, we can go, united, to the Commission.
We look forward to that.
I did not hear what the Minister of State had to say about the mackerel quota.
The mackerel quota is up.
We did not hear how the Minister of State will distribute it.
I do not believe the Acting Chairman would allow me to go into that in some detail. However——
Will we get anything in Castletownbere?
——it is an example of adopting a tough stance and getting a benefit.