Vol. 669 No. 3
67 Deputy James Bannon asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food his views, as a matter of urgency, on the necessity to introduce a revised forest road scheme to assist farmers to build the required forest roads infrastructure; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43883/08]
Some €128 million has been allocated to the Forestry subhead for 2009, demonstrating the Government's commitment to maintaining an active and substantial forestry programme into the future. This significant investment by the Government will allow for the operation of a range of forestry schemes next year. However, much of the allocation for 2009 is already committed and the scope for new forestry schemes, or enhancements to existing ones, is limited.
Given the substantial State investment in forestry over the last number of years I fully appreciate the need to manage the forest resource we have. My Department has been promoting thinning and related wood energy initiatives over the last couple of years and I recognise the importance of forest roads to facilitate this. Our officials are assessing how available resources can best be employed to meet the demands of industry for proper forest infrastructure.
Our officials recently met with the stakeholders in the forestry sector through the medium of the forestry liaison group. They fully briefed them on the financial position for 2009 and the need for the prioritisation of programme expenditure. The views of the stakeholders were sought on the areas of forestry activity where resources would best be employed and this will assist my Department in its examination of spending priorities.
The overall forestry situation is currently being reviewed in light of the allocation under the 2009 budget to ensure the available funds are put to best use. The allocation of funding to specific schemes will be on a basis of strict prioritisation of programmes in order to maximise the benefits for all the stakeholders within the forest industry.
I am a little disappointed with the Minister's reply. He seems to be putting off paying the forestry grants for roads into private forestry plantations, most of which are broadleaf plantations that will be of significant importance when I am long gone from the House.
I cannot imagine that.
That is a long time away.
It is no good putting things on the long finger. What reply can I give to the thousands of farmers who planted and put their faith in broadleaf plantations? Their plantations take 40 or 50 years to come to maturity and are of immense significance for the country both economically and environmentally. If the Minister of State wants to curb emissions that threaten us with a global disaster in the near future, he should start at his feet. He should begin with the people who had the faith to plant plantations for the future of the country. However, the Minister is putting these farmers on the long finger. When will he introduce the revised forest road scheme that is urgently required to assist farmers to build the required forest roads infrastructure? He has not answered that question. Will he do so now?
I will try to elaborate further. It is not telling tales out of school to say we sought more money so we could introduce the necessary schemes. We did not get everything we wanted, but we got most of it. The €128 million we got was considered good in the context of the situation with which we must deal. Therefore, we had to prioritise. The priority was to put the funds into the planting end of the business — the Deputy should be happy with that — because of the need for a greater amount of timber for the economic and environmental reasons to which the Deputy has alluded, sequestration of emissions being but one of them. We also need a larger amount of timber to substitute for imports and for fuel.
With regard to fuel, there is now, more than ever, a market for thinnings, because of the wood pellet business and biomass yield and these provide revenue. The calculation we have made is that as a result of the growing market and demand for thinnings, this should help in providing a level of infrastructure to support the market. At the same time, we also need to increase plantings. We had to take a strategic decision. We hope and predict that the growing demand for thinnings will result in revenue that will help to offset the shortfall we have in the budget.
That may be a step in the right direction, but time is of importance. How soon can the Minister of State establish a grant system for private foresters who have committed themselves to the future economy of the country? When can he announce a package of grants for forestry roads for these private planters?
Much as I would love to be able to give the Deputy a date, I cannot. I have already said that the available resources will determine when it will be possible to extend the revised forest road scheme. Unfortunately, that is the reality and I cannot dress it up or make it sound any better. I remind the Deputy there is a growing demand for the thinnings because they are the raw material for wood pellets.
How can farmers bring out the thinnings without the roads infrastructure?
All I can do is tell people the truth, which is they should not wait for the revised forest roads scheme before getting on with thinning. I have an interest in the forestry planting area.
So have I.
We both have, so let us speak as people with that interest. It is bad advice to tell people to hang on so they may get a grant for thinning, because as the years pass, the trees become less valuable unless they are thinned at the right time. It is not possible to say wait and see and the grant will come in due course. I want people to take the decisions now and get the value of the thinnings and the improved value of the timber later, which will be enhanced if they thin at the right time. There is no time to wait around.
Surely there is no time for the Government to wait to introduce a scheme.
We cannot just print the money.
Is it a case of live horse and one will get grass?
No, it is a case of the budget. I do not know what the Deputy expects me to do. Does he want me to take the thinnings, turn them into paper and print money and give it back to people? The only outcome of that would be an increased sale of wheelbarrows, because we could not manage that without causing significant inflation. We must be realistic. We do not have the money for the schemes, but there is value in the product so the market should drive the thinning business.
How can it do that if the infrastructure is not there for it?
68 Deputy Seán Barrett asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will introduce administrative sanctions for minor fisheries offences here in view of the recent EU decision to implement administrative sanctions on a harmonised basis throughout Europe; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43886/08]
Ireland has a very important position as custodian of some of the largest and richest fishing waters within the EU, but also in our location on the edge of the Atlantic Ocean. Ireland continues to maintain high standards in the enforcement of regulations within the exclusive fisheries zone, using the resources of the Naval Service, the Air Corps and the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority.
The systems for dealing with infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy vary greatly from member state to member state and useful comparisons are not easily drawn. Many continental legal systems are different from that of Ireland and lend themselves to an administrative fines and penalties structure. Previous advice from the Attorney General in this regard indicated that under the Irish legal system, the types of penalties which Ireland is obliged to apply under the Common Fisheries Policy would be viewed as criminal in nature and, therefore, could only be administered by the courts by virtue of Articles 34, 37 and 38 of the Constitution.
Under the Sea Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006, the position is that all sanctions are purely financial in nature. The Act simply sets down the maximum fines that may be applied. No minimum fine is set and it is a matter for a judge, taking into account the specific case, to determine the fine levied. The Act also applied for the first time a scaled approach to setting maximum fines whereby the maximum fines set for smaller vessels are less than for larger vessels. In that respect, the 2006 Act sought to guarantee a degree of proportionality for fines, based on vessel size, a factor which did not exist in the previous legislation.
Administrative fines for fisheries offences could be introduced in Ireland if the infringements and appropriate sanctions were set down in European law. I welcome new proposals which have been brought forward by the EU Commission with regard to introducing a new overall control regulatory framework. These proposals will be examined carefully, including from a legal perspective, to consider if their provisions will support the introduction of administrative sanctions in Ireland.
We have always argued that control levels need to be raised across the European Union if we are to protect the future of stocks in all Community waters and fishing communities throughout the Community who are wholly dependent on those stocks. It is clearly in the interests of the Irish fishing industry and fishing communities that there is strong and effective implementation of the quotas and other conservation measures on all fishing vessels fishing stocks in our zone. I am committed to this in the interest of our fishermen and consequently welcome this proposal for a new control and inspection regulation, including efforts to introduce a harmonised system of sanctions.
Thank you. I call Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, followed by Deputy Sheehan.
Can I ask the——
Excuse me. I nominated the question.
I do not want to get involved in a dispute between colleagues.
As the person who nominated the question, should I not be entitled to speak first in the debate?
I suspect so. However, I thought there was an agreement between the Deputies. That is why I called the other Deputy.
I am going to insist on going first.
That is fine. I am happy to facilitate that.
I thank the Acting Chairman. That is more like it.
Thereafter, I will take Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's contribution. I make the point that the Chair was innocent in this regard. The Deputy should proceed.
Does the Chair receive the list of nominating members?
The Deputy should proceed.
I advise him to get it in future, because this has caused disagreement.
I thought there was agreement between both Members.
No. While he has an opportunity to speak, I nominated the question one week ago.
The Deputy should proceed.
I asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food "when he will introduce administrative sanctions for minor fisheries offences here in view of the recent EU decision to implement administrative sanctions on a harmonised basis throughout Europe; and if he will make a statement on the matter".
While the Minister made a statement on the matter, I wish to raise the use of administrative sanctions in fisheries law. Every country in the European Union has harmonised laws in respect of fishery offences, which are administrative, rather than criminal sanctions. Ireland is the only country in Europe to introduce criminal sanctions against its fishermen and this is not in line with European law.
The Minister should take cognisance that the eminent lawyer and senior counsel, Dr. Gerard Hogan, appeared before the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food this morning to discuss the constitutionality of administrative sanctions which apply under the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006. His advice to the joint committee's members was that Ireland is not doing the right thing by criminalising its trawler skippers because they might have an additional box or two of monkfish or cod in their catch. How can a trawler owner be responsible for whatever is in a net after two or three hours trawling? In the efforts towards conservation, such an owner is supposed to dump the fish back into the sea because he or she could face a criminal charge were they to be landed. What conservation efforts are served by dumping dead fish into the sea when half the world starves? The Minister is on cloud nine when operating this law of criminalisation. He is criminalising the trawler owners. They have been criminalised for the past ten years and cannot even travel to the United States because they have a criminal indictment against their names.
When will the Minister abide by the advice the joint committee received today from Dr. Gerard Hogan? When will the Minister put in place the necessary legislation to make all fisheries offences administrative, rather than criminal in nature?
The Minister should reply, after which I will allow Deputies Jim O'Keeffe and Sherlock to make brief contributions.
This is not the first time I have heard Deputy Sheehan raise this issue at either the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or this Chamber. I indicated in my reply:
Previous advice from the Attorney General in this regard indicated that under the Irish legal system the types of penalties which Ireland is obliged to apply under the Common Fisheries Policy would be viewed as criminal in nature and, therefore, could only be administered by the courts by virtue of Articles 34, 37 and 38 of the Constitution.
It also is important to note "administrative fines for fisheries offences could be introduced in Ireland if the infringements and appropriate sanctions were set down in European law". The Attorney General is the legal adviser to the Government and this issue was raised and discussed at length by Members in 2006. At that time, the Attorney General's opinion, which has been reiterated subsequently, is that it was not possible. I am sure the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will bring to my Department's attention the advice offered to it today by Dr. Hogan, who undoubtedly is a distinguished senior counsel. One measure to be welcomed is that the European Commission has introduced a draft regulation on controls to be implemented by January 2010. Naturally, the Government will seek the Attorney General's legal advice on this Commission proposal.
Does the Minister accept that a scheme of fixed penalty sanctions is not contrary to Ireland's obligations under the Common Fisheries Policy, as was alleged during the debate on the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act? Second, does he accept Ireland now is the only major maritime nation to rely exclusively on criminal penalties for policing fisheries offences? Third, does he accept Ireland also is the only country in which gear and catch are forfeited as a mandatory statutory consequence in nearly every incidence of fisheries infraction, no matter how minor?
Does he not then accept that there are ways to deal with this matter if the political will to so do existed? There are two ways in which to deal with it. The first is for Ireland to be part of an EU-wide regulation, whereby each EU member state is obligated to implement that EU regulation. This approach should be pursued, although it might take some time. The other way to deal with it is through the introduction of a fixed penalty approach, in a manner similar to the introduction of same in many other European countries and in the United Kingdom in particular. This has been introduced in Scotland and is being introduced at present in Northern Ireland. While taking into account the provisions of Article 37.1 of the Constitution, why is Ireland not following this approach? It is the same basis on which fixed penalty fines have been introduced for minor and technical offences under the Road Traffic Acts, Local Government Acts and the Litter Pollution Act 1997; there is a clear precedent for so doing. The Minister should confirm that he would look favourably on an argued approach that permits the introduction of such fixed penalty administrative fines in Ireland. I always have argued that such fines are quite capable of being introduced under our Constitution.
I refer to a point being made on the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006 in which it was stated that administrative sanctions would not be constitutional. My recollection is that this issue arose after the legislation had been passed, on foot of pressure from backbenchers in the Minister's party, as well as many approaches made by Opposition Members.
Is that the Deputy's question?
It was stated that it could not be done on advice from the Attorney General. The advice received by the joint committee from Dr. Hogan completely and absolutely contradicts this position. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe made the point at the meeting that it depends on how one puts the question and I concur with this. Members believe the question was put with a preconceived answer in mind. For minor offences, sanctions can be introduced on a fines basis, or whatever is necessary, through amending the Act or through other measures to which Deputy Jim O'Keeffe also has referred. This issue must be revisited. If there is sincerity and if the political will exists on the Government side of the House to deal with the issue, this can be done. Obviously however, if such political will is lacking, it will not be done. My point is the Government's bluff must be called in this regard.
On a point of order, did the Minister state the EU has not sought any regulation in this regard to harmonise the situation?
While I am unsure whether that is a point of order, the Minister should respond with the final word in this regard.
First, I wish to correct Deputy Ferris by stating there is no lack of political will or sincerity on this side of the House in respect of this or any fisheries issue. Neither he nor I is in a position to give a detailed response to Dr. Hogan's legal opinion. Professor Hogan is a eminent constitutional lawyer. As I stated to Deputy Sheehan, no doubt the committee will forward that particular advice to our Department and we will seek the Attorney General's advice.
Deputy Jim O'Keeffe has had numerous discussions with the Minister of State, Deputy Tony Killeen, in this regard.
That is correct.
According to the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe put forward some constructive proposals on this matter and I thank him for them.
May I wish him well?
Yes.
I repeat the advice available to me, that the possibility of introducing a Minister's sanction was comprehensively considered, including examination of practice in other member states, at the time of the passage of the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006 through the Oireachtas. The position taken by the Minister at the time was based on the legal advice from the then Attorney General and has been confirmed by the Attorney General, Mr. Paul Gallagher SC.
It is an important issue. I will be meeting the European Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Mr. Borg, before the end of the week. We will be discussing a range of fisheries issues with him prior to the December Council and also ongoing issues, and this will obviously be an issue.
The European Commission has introduced a draft regulation on control to be implemented by January 2010. The proposal provides for a penalty points system. I reassure all Deputies who have contributed to this question that the proposal will be sent to the Attorney General's office for legal advice on the elements in it which set sanction levels for offences. Naturally, we will report back to each of the individual Deputies who have been consistent in their representation and their articulation on this particular issue.
Will the Minister give me an assurance today that he will give this matter urgent attention on account of the forthcoming Lisbon treaty referendum rerun? The fishing community all over the country voted "No" on account of that the last time and it will be of vital importance to get their confidence back.
In the many meetings that the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, and I have had with individual Members of the Oireachtas and with the Federation of Irish Fishermen, these issues have been raised. Indeed, we have raised them subsequent to our meetings with the fisheries' representative organisation.
Naturally, when the advice of Professor Hogan is received by us from the Oireachtas committee, we will ask the Attorney General, who is the legal adviser to the Government, to give that——
Bring in legislation immediately.
I am not going to state that I can bring in legislation immediately. The Government is advised by the Attorney General and that advice will be forthcoming.
The Minister can help.
69 Deputy James Bannon asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will launch the tending and first thinnings of broadleafs scheme as announced by his Department earlier in 2008 but never launched; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43884/08]
I have a proposal that Question No. 69 not be proceeded with. That requires the agreement of all Members. If it is agreed, the Minister's reply would then form part of the record. Is that agreed?
Agreed.
Will the Minister's reply be reported on the record?
There is more to be said about it, to be honest.
I do not want to delay.
It is a matter for the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent. I have to put it.
I am not answering the question but I would be guided by——
We are agreeable to take the written reply.
Is that agreeable to the Minister of State?
——the Deputy opposite.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The State has made a substantial investment in forestry over the last number of years and I recognise the need to manage the forest resource it has funded. Given the many calls on the funding available, my officials are assessing how available resources can best be employed to meet the demands of industry.
The Government has allocated €128 million to the forestry subhead for 2009. The allocation demonstrates the commitment of the Government to a strong future for forestry in Ireland and will allow for the operation of forestry schemes next year. However, much of the allocation for 2009 is already committed and the scope for new forestry schemes, or enhancements to existing ones, is limited.
My officials recently briefed the stakeholders in the forestry sector on the financial position for 2009 and the need for the prioritisation of programme expenditure. The stakeholders highlighted the areas of forestry activity where they believed that resources would best be employed and this will assist my Department in its examination of spending priorities.
Demand within the forestry sector for the introduction of a scheme for tending and first thinnings of broadleafs has been highlighted. Unfortunately demand for all the forestry support schemes was quite high this year, relative to the funds available and it was not possible, therefore, to launch this scheme as originally intended.
The overall forestry situation is currently being reviewed in the light of the allocation under the 2009 budget to ensure the available funds are put to best use. The allocation of funding to specific schemes will be on a basis of strict prioritisation of programmes in order to maximise the benefits for all the stakeholders within the forest industry.
70 Deputy Liz McManus asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will allow an extension of the period by which farmers can complete work under the farm waste management scheme as is the case in Northern Ireland where farmers have obtained additional time to complete building works under its on-farm grant scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43979/08]
The deadline of 31 December 2008 for completion of work by farmers under the revised farm waste management scheme introduced by my Department in March 2006 is a condition of the EU state aid approval for the scheme. The European Commission has since reaffirmed that it expects Ireland to respect this deadline strictly. This has been made known to all farmers who have been approved to commence work under the scheme and I have urged farmers to ensure that such work is completed and a payment claim submitted to my Department before the end of the year.
Where the farmer is unable to complete all the approved works before the deadline, grant-aid will be paid by my Department on separate and discrete units of work which are completed to the Department's technical specifications subject again to fulfilment of the conditions regarding the deadline set out above. Full details regarding this matter were sent by the Department to all approved farmers under the scheme some time ago.
I have confirmed previously on a number of occasions that there will be no extension to the deadline concerned. The measures adopted in Northern Ireland in regard to its own scheme, which is substantially different to ours, are a matter for the authorities there.
Is the Minister aware that in Northern Ireland this scheme has been extended by a number of months?
In October last, 30,000 of the 42,000 applicants had proceeded and notified the Department that they were commencing work. Obviously, there will be a number — let us not argue about its size — who will not proceed in any event. However, there is a sizeable number of farmers who will not be compliant with the Nitrates Directive by virtue of the scheme deadline. The future for them is either that they reduce their farming activities or they finance it out of their own resources, neither of which is viable in my opinion.
The Minister must also take into account the significant employment that will be generated, in rural communities, in particular, in the construction sector. According to the live register today, 17,000 additional persons went on the register in November.
Would the Minister please consider at this late stage extending the deadline by six months to enable the maximum number of applicants to complete those works and be compliant with the Nitrates Directive?
If I had two seconds extra, I would have come in on cue but I was being given a briefing by the Deputy from south-west Cork.
Now that Deputy Sherlock is briefed, he can ask his question.
I note Deputy Creed was quick off the mark. Anyway, as somebody who posed the question, even though it is in the name of Deputy Liz McManus, I wish to put on record that I do not see why this is so, there is not any legal impediment and there is no European Union directive that states that the Minister cannot extend the deadline to allow for this scheme to be implemented. The scheme is revenue neutral.
I do not see why, if it can be done on one part of this island, it cannot be done on another part of this island. It defies logic. Farmers in the North are farming the same types of land as farmers in the South. I cannot see the logic of the Government's position on this matter. I do not see why the Minister cannot change his mind on it. I ask the Minister to consider changing his mind on it.
Acting Chairman, it was nominated by me.
No, it was not.
I asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will extend the deadline of 31 December 2008 for persons who have been approved for a farm waste management grant; if he has made approaches to the European Commission seeking an extension of time for those who have been approved for a farm waste management grant; and if he will make a statement on the matter. I want one minute to speak.
The question is in the name of Deputy Liz McManus, nominated by Deputy Seán Sherlock.
Did the Acting Chairman get the one nominated by Deputy P. J. Sheehan?
I did not.
It is further down the list.
It has not been advised to me.
It is there and it was submitted.
Unfortunately, the questions must be dealt with by the Chair.
Give me one minute only.
I will. Go ahead.
I can see no reason why the Minister cannot extend that scheme, for three months, if possible, to allow for the people who have encountered such savage weather conditions in the past 12 months. They were hardly able to dig out the foundation for these improvements.
I would not mind but I believe that the Minister has not made an application to Brussels for an extension of the deadline of 31 December next. If he has not, would he please do so immediately?
There are agricultural contractors in my constituency in west Cork laying off hundreds of people next week on account of that deadline. I believe they got an extension in Northern Ireland. Why can we not get it if we make an application?
I want to know for future reference whether the Minister made an application to the European Commission for an extension of the deadline and if so, what was the result. That is all I want.
I reiterate the need for an extension of the deadline similar to that afforded to the Six Counties, for three months. I emphasise that there are many who will not get their buildings completed by that date. Others cannot even get started because there is nobody available with the necessary qualifications to do that. It is mind boggling to say that slurry spreading could be extended to 31 December by the Minister in the North, and again by the same Minister for another three months. Maybe we need a Sinn Féin Minister on that side of the House.
There is no merit in comparing the scheme in the three Ulster counties in this jurisdiction with the remaining 23 counties. The scheme rolled out by the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development in the North for its farming community is a scheme where grant aid is only applicable in respect of slurry storage capacity. There was no element to include grant aid for housing, so it is not accurate to compare the schemes because they are not similar. The level of grant aid is not as good in the North either.
My understanding is that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland has not received express European Commission clearance for this procedure. I also understand that the Department in the North will consider applications in exceptional circumstances, but it does not have a general extension to the scheme until 2 March. When the Tánaiste, as Minister for Agriculture and Food, obtained State aid approval from the European Commission, the very arguments she made were about adverse weather conditions in early 2006. Unfortunately for all of us, those adverse weather conditions have not improved. In seeking a time derogation, our other argument was that there was not sufficient construction capacity in our economy and that there would be a huge scale of work to be undertaken when we launched a particular scheme. These arguments got us the extension from March 2006 to the end of December 2008. It has been an extremely successful scheme and the most generous granted-aided on-farm investment scheme. The European Commission consistently repeated to us this year that it gave us an exceptional extension to the end of December 2008 and that we were obliged to adhere strictly to that particular condition.
Some months ago, following conversations with individual farmers and representations from colleagues in the Oireachtas, I found out that some farmers, for whatever reason, might not have completed the entire project for which they applied in 2006. I introduced a specific measure to allow an individual applicant carry out part of the work, known as a discrete unit, within the overall plan and finish it according to the Department's specification. The person who would work on an individual project within the overall scheme could draw down grant aid on that particular unit of the project. Many individual farmers applied for substantial projects back in 2006. Subsequently, they might not want to go ahead with the housing element of the scheme. We issued approval to those people to finish specific units within the overall scheme, and that has facilitated many farmers throughout the country in doing the necessary work as they saw fit.
Did the Minister take the adverse weather conditions into account?
One of the reasons for getting the extension to the end of December 2008 was the existence of adverse weather conditions. Unfortunately, those conditions have not improved in the meantime.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
