Vol. 692 No. 1
6 Deputy Liz McManus asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the measures in the Report of the Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programme specifically targeting cuts at Teagasc which are to be implemented. [36215/09]
The Government has not made any decisions regarding implementation of the recommendations in the Report of the Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programme as they concern Teagasc. The 2010 Estimates process is under way and measures to secure savings in the public finances will be considered in that context. It is not possible at this stage to comment on the specific outcomes of the budgetary process.
It is the responsibility of the Teagasc authority to exercise full and effective control over the organisation. Ministerial responsibility is confined to matters of policy in accordance with the Act establishing Teagasc and is not concerned with day-to-day operations. The Teagasc authority agreed a major change programme earlier this year to reorganise and refocus the organisation to meet the significant challenges that lie ahead. The planned programme has a medium-term implementation timeframe and provides for rationalisation measures across the organisation, including the advisory office and educational networks, disposal of land resources and prioritisation of programme activities. As part of the programme, Teagasc also plans to increase support for science-based innovation in the bio-sector and increase emphasis on transferring knowledge to farmers, the food industry and other clients.
I asked this question, given that Teagasc's procedures and operations have already been reviewed. I do not doubt that the recommendations will be implemented. However, the McCarthy report states that there is scope for reducing Teagasc's staff numbers by a minimum of 250 in the short term by rationalisation of agricultural colleges and locations, reducing lower priority advisory and research activities, reducing administration and advisory services, the latter by 50%, reducing education and training functions by 30% and 20%, respectively, by 2011 and reviewing the network of offices.
If the economy is to get back on its feet, the research, administrative and support services provided by Teagasc will be necessary to ensure people operating in the rural economy have the advantage they require. I strongly suggest that the Minister of State should defend the services operated by Teagasc, particularly scientific research where McCarthy proposes that all research should be codified in one body. This will not necessarily assist in agricultural or agribusiness-related research and this should be revised and reviewed.
With regard to those people who are employed by Teagasc in the agricultural colleges, a question arises about their future if this report is implemented. I agree there is a budgetary process in train but I ask that this area be defended. If it is not defended, and we see post-budget in 2009 and 2010 a further reduction or diminution in the services operated by Teagasc, it will have untold consequences for the rural economy which we will not stand over.
The remit of Teagasc is very wide, as Deputy Sherlock rightly said. Considerable emphasis is being placed on co-operation with other third level colleges and universities with regard to research, but also co-operation on development with agrifood businesses both in this country and abroad. A substantial element of the programme of Teagasc in the revised programme will be directing some of its resources to that area. Considerable resources are also dedicated to training farmers and others with an involvement in the agrifood and bio sectors and this will continue — in many instances, in co-operation with some of the third level colleges, such as the institutes of technology in particular.
The revised programme for Government contains a proposal to recruit in the region of 1,000 third level graduates across various Departments. Does the Minister of State not consider it somewhat contradictory that Teagasc staff who have accumulated great expertise and who are, by and large, third level graduates may well be made redundant, but others will be recruited? I ask the Minister of State to comment on this proposal in the revised programme for Government.
As I explained, the Minister's role is a policy one; the board of Teagasc has a particular role. The document which sets out the remit and functions of Teagasc to 2030 considers issues and areas referred to by Deputy Creed and previously by Deputy Sherlock. It charts a course for Teagasc which clearly includes an input from recently qualified graduates and others who have a contribution to make. It also sets out a strong and inherent role for Teagasc at a new level which must be attained very quickly. I am satisfied the role of Teagasc as set out by its board has the capacity to achieve this.
I tabled a question on the public service numbers and expenditure programme. This report was sanctioned by Government and makes specific recommendations. When I ask about these specific recommendations, with all due respect to those Ministers, I get blasé, bland answers about the wonderful role of Teagasc. My questions are pertinent to what is in the report. I want to know whether those services will be defended; I do not want an answer that hides behind the budgetary process which is still a long way off. We want definitive answers. I ask those questions on behalf of those people who live in rural Ireland, who live beyond the so-called Pale, and who depend on these services.
A final reply from the Minister of State.
Members will be aware the report has been presented to Government but has not in any sense been sanctioned by it at this stage. The consideration of the report can only happen in any realistic sense in the context of the consideration of the budgets for 2010, 2011 and subsequent years. There is no other way it could be done. The governance of Teagasc is, in the first instance, the responsibility of the board and a particular direction has been taken which takes account of the implications of the agrifood sector both nationally and internationally. I commend Teagasc in that regard.
7 Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the outcome of recent meetings of EU Agriculture Ministers, including the special meeting in Brussels in early October 2009, in relation to the dairy market, both in Ireland and in the EU; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36057/09]
The dairy market has been discussed at Council of Ministers meetings every month since March this year. At these meetings, my ministerial colleagues and I have continually pressed the Commission to take all appropriate measures to deal with the situation and this has helped to stabilise the market. The measures taken this year include the restoration of export refunds for dairy products and these were increased twice in June. Intervention for butter and skimmed milk powder has continued beyond the mandatory fixed limits. In July, it was agreed to implement a special measure to extend intervention beyond August to February 2010 and to 2011, if necessary. This provision will be formally adopted at the October Council meeting which will be held in Luxembourg next Monday and Tuesday.
At the last formal Council meeting in September, the Commissioner presented the dairy market report which set out some options for the sector. At that meeting, I joined Ministers from 15 other member states in seeking major improvements in support for hard-pressed dairy farmers. We signed a statement calling for a comprehensive EU approach that would combine immediate short-term measures along with a medium-term strategy to deal with volatility in the milk sector. I attended a special Council meeting last week to look at medium to long-term measures for the dairy sector. At that meeting it was agreed to set up a high level group of member states, chaired by the Commission's agriculture director general, to examine the type of arrangements to be put in place.
The high level group will examine medium and long-term ways of stabilising dairy farmers' incomes and improving market transparency. In its work towards delivering a comprehensive report by June 2010, the group will examine means through which contractual arrangements in the supply chain can contribute to the highest possible returns for producers, giving them more bargaining power in the process and providing a buffer against extremes of market volatility such as those being experienced at present. It will also examine existing market instruments and consider what other means, including a dairy futures market, could contribute to the objective of price stability in the longer term.
Last week, I announced the establishment of a consultative group to advise me on the issues emerging at the high level group. In particular, the ideas, knowledge and expert opinion of the Irish dairy sector will provide key perspectives on how the sector needs to be developed and supported into the future. The consultative group will be representative of all the stakeholders and I will be asking all the main organisations to nominate representatives and these arrangements are being put in place at present.
I also welcomed the commitment given by Commissioner Fischer Boel at last week's special Council to manage the release of stocks from intervention in a prudent manner.
I am glad the Minister had the opportunity to read the last sentence of his reply because I intended asking him, in view of the delicate recovery under way in global dairy prices, what assurances he has been given that products now in intervention arising from efforts at EU level to support the industry will not be prematurely released back onto the market, thereby bringing the recovery to a halt.
In light of that recovery, has the Minister and his Department any estimate of to what level milk prices per litre will return in 2010? Dairy farmers have taken a particular hammering and are anxious to budget and plan for 2010. What price on average does the Minister expect for milk in 2010?
The Minister and his Department have frittered away the dairy investment fund with no strategic objectives achieved in terms of efficiencies in the dairy processing sector. How does the Department, either directly or by means of other State agencies such as Enterprise Ireland, propose to assist in the endeavours under way to bring greater efficiencies to the dairy processing sector?
With regard to Deputy Creed's last point, I do not accept that the dairy investment fund was not worthwhile. It was exceptionally worthwhile and in many instances——
It was frittered away.
It was not frittered away.
There was no strategic objective at all.
Allow the Minister to reply.
Perhaps Deputy Creed and his colleagues could identify——
A bit around the Border maybe.
Please allow the Minister. Deputy Creed stated his question without interruption and he should allow the Minister to state his reply without interruption.
In response to Deputy Creed's last point, I do not think that any of colleagues up in my constituency would disagree with giving grant aid to Lakeland Dairies for a very substantial and worthwhile investment at their Bailieboro plant.
The Minister should have a chat with the dairy farmers up there.
Please, Deputy Creed.
Lakeland Dairies is not paying the worst price, unfortunately, as there are prices below what it is paying. The investment being put into the Bailieboro plant is very worthwhile and will create greater efficiencies. Greater production and efficiencies go back to the individual primary producer. I was in north Cork, Deputy Creed's county, with Dairygold and I saw very worthwhile investment there. Very worthwhile investments have been made throughout the country. All applications were adjudicated upon and went through a thorough analysis on the benefits they would bring in regard to efficiency and value added new product. I was in Carbery, west Cork also——
The Deputy received a warm welcome.
Yes I did and I do not mind that. I received a very warm welcome and I saw the great work going on in that plant as well as the supply from its four constituent dairy co-operatives. That investment has been very worthwhile. Naturally, we wish to see greater collaboration and co-operation. In early September, I travelled to Finland and Denmark with the major dairy companies and we met all the major dairy companies there. They outlined to us the rationalisation process they went through, the scale of production issues and the research and development undertaken, to which the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, referred earlier. There is co-operation between Teagasc in Moore Park and many of the leading research institutes in Scandinavia as well. I am keen for the whole area of collaboration to proceed. There is plenty of scope for efficiencies to be introduced and for new product development as well.
I spoke with the EU Commissioner early in the summer regarding the release of intervention stocks. We also raised the matter at the Council of Ministers meeting. I put it that when the recovery comes there must be a prudent release of intervention stocks in the future, not when the market is recovering because we do not wish to have downward pressure on prices again. That commitment has been given and it was written into a Council decision.
What will the price of milk be next year?
I do not know who in the world could answer the question of what price milk will be next year.
The Agriculture Council will meet next week. Will that meeting give rise to a new regulation regarding a CMO, common market organisation, for milk or dairy, or will the status quo remain for political intervention in the market, given that there is a slight increase in the price and a slight recovery at present? Is the strategy within the European Union to do nothing at present? It is possible a logical strategy would be to wait to see if there will be a further recovery, or will there be further intervention? I did not quite understand the Minister’s original reply.
The intervention by the European Commission since January has involved the activation of market support measures. That is the nature of the support the European Union can give to the dairy sector. The aids to public and private storage were brought forward to 1 January and the other market support measures were activated from March onwards. Normally, they end in August but at the July Council we reached agreement with the Commissioner to continue those measures beyond August. A mechanism is in place now such that should the need arise for the continuation of those measures, they can continue until March 2011. We all hope these measures will not be needed, that there will be buoyancy in the market, that the price will return to the proper level and that those market supports would not be needed. However, the very important decision that will be taken on Monday next is that the Commission will give a formal guarantee that it will release the intervention stocks in future in a prudent manner and that it will not create downward pressure on the market and bring us back to where we were.
Last Monday, I was in Vienna and I met representatives from 19 like-minded member states. We have worked together to put pressure on the Commission to ensure the market support measures would be used to the best possible effect. Some 21 countries including France, Germany, Belgium and many others have signed a declaration that will come before the Council of Ministers next Monday. This will put to bed once and for all the quota issue and it will not be revisited. Baseless arguments have been made in recent months to the effect that the quota increase we received through the Common Agriculture Policy health check one year ago was the cause of the fall in price this year. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a country we are more than 8% under quota.
Another very important step for the medium term is that enhanced measures should be put in place to deal with volatility and we must prepare for the ending of quotas in 2015 as well. That was first decided in 2003 and it was confirmed in the health check of November last year. It was also confirmed in the Heads of Government meeting last June.
8 Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food his priorities in the negotiations of the Common Agricultural Policy post-2013; the recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on future negotiations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36264/09]
A first policy debate on CAP post-2013 took place at the informal Agriculture and Fisheries Council in September last year under the French EU Presidency. The Czech Presidency continued the debate in the first months of 2009, focusing in particular on the issue of direct payments to farmers. The Swedish Presidency programme provides for further discussion later this year concentrating on rural development issues. In addition to these discussions at Council, both my officials and I have engaged with other member states and the Commission bilaterally on the future of the CAP.
Notwithstanding the discussions to date, concrete proposals have yet to emerge on the shape of EU agriculture policy beyond 2013. The Commission is expected to bring forward a formal communication in mid-2010 on the future of the CAP, followed by legal proposals in mid 2011. A first round of formal negotiations will commence on the communication, leading possibly to the agreement of Council conclusions, while the more intense phase of formal negotiations will commence once the legal proposals are tabled.
My view, expressed at meetings of the Council and bilaterally to my ministerial colleagues, is that we must maintain a strong agricultural production base in the European Union in the future to take account of the challenges ahead in meeting increased demands for food. Any reduction in food production in the EU would be taken up elsewhere, where less efficient production systems exist and would result in a heavier carbon footprint. We must also undertake food production and distribution in a manner that is sustainable in all its dimensions, including economically, socially and environmentally.
There will be major challenges ahead from climate change, increased competition on world and EU markets, the international economic crisis and other factors. We must ensure we have the capacity to cope with the challenges and fully exploit the opportunities as they emerge. To do so our whole sector, from farm to fork, must be highly efficient and competitive. It must also be innovative, producing the products that changing consumer tastes demand and it must be relentlessly focused on quality and safety.
To achieve these objectives, there is a continuing need for an active and appropriately resourced European agricultural policy. That policy must recognise the role that a cohesive agriculture and rural development policy can play in addressing future energy needs, addressing environmental concerns and providing a secure and sustainable food supply in Europe.
I launched a consultation process in July last with stakeholders to obtain their views on what EU agriculture policies would serve Ireland and the EU best in the years to come. I am very pleased with the response received to date and I call on those organisations which have not already made submissions to let me have their views as soon as possible. All submissions received will be carefully examined and will help to inform our position in the very important negotiations that lie ahead. I thank Members of the Oireachtas who have made individual submissions as well.
The Minister's and Department's publication on the reform of the Common Agriculture Policy seems to favour a move from the current system of support to a flat, area-based payment system. Does the Minister intend to pursue that objective at a European level in negotiations? Does the Minister believe he undermines his own case in that regard by current and proposed further cuts in the area-based payments inflicted on farmers?
No. I point out to Deputy Creed the document we issued was consultative. It was to generate debate and to put out the parameters of the issues to be discussed. We have clearly stated that we have no set views. The point we have outlined strongly, clearly and consistently in Europe is that we must have a well-funded CAP. We will not tolerate the weakening of the European Union's food production base. We must meet the challenges.
Food production must be doubled by 2050 and there are climate change issues and those of the protection of the environment. I have reiterated the point consistently in Europe and I fervently believe that if we were to lessen or weaken the food production base in Europe which, by definition, is a very efficient system, it would shift the demand for more food production to less efficient systems in continents far away from us. Such a shift in demand would lead to deforestation, production of food in less efficient systems and the transport of food throughout the world. The end result of this would be an increase in the carbon footprint. We sent out the document during the summer and I appreciate Deputy Creed's response, that of other Members and that of many organisations. The purpose of the document was to initiate discussion and debate. We have not given any indication that we want to move from the single payment supported scheme to a flat base system. We have not indicated that to any extent whatsoever. In the CAP health check, a consultative committee worked closely with my Department. We will again be establishing a consultative committee representative of all interest groups to work on devising proposals well in advance of the serious discussions that will commence.
Environmental measures, such as water management, will become more prevalent under the CAP in future. The question concerns the administrative functions. There is a suggestion afoot that we will move from pillar one to pillar two and that, instead of direct payments to farmers for management of the economy, it will be administered through various local organisations. That danger is there, so the question needs to be addressed. It may not be a real fear, but it is something that needs to be addressed. I would like to hear the Minister's view on that in the first instance.
Second, as regards carbon reduction, at some stage there will have to be an internal debate between the Minister, Deputy Smith, and the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent, as to whether methane reduction will become an issue if the process of carbon reduction becomes part of the CAP regime. The climate change agenda is also on the cards, given the forthcoming UN conference in Copenhagen in December. How will we get to a situation where we do not compromise production or market share, while meeting future demands for food, as well as other targets? There will be an internal battle within the Government on that issue. It is something that will arise in the context of the CAP. I would like to get an opinion from the Minister on these questions.
All the points raised by Deputy Sherlock are very important. I do not favour additional funding going to pillar two. Pillar one has been extremely beneficial not just for farmers, but also for protecting the environment and ensuring that Europe has security of food supplies for its citizens. That was the second article of the Treaty of Rome in 1957 and it is as appropriate today as it was for the founding fathers of the EEC. All these issues are being discussed at the Cabinet sub-committee on climate change. The Deputy rightly mentioned the leading research and advisory role of Teagasc, which has done phenomenal research work for my Department. It works closely with the Department's inspectorate on what is achievable. Together with New Zealand's farmers, Ireland's agricultural sector is regarded as having one of the most efficient food production systems in the world. Therefore we cannot reduce methane gas emissions that much. A lot of research has gone into the dietary requirements of animals, including grass breeding as well as animal breeding. There has been phenomenal progress in that regard.
Going back to Deputy Sherlock's first point, can we take that as a commitment and not a negotiable point — that the CAP will be based on pillar one on the basis that food production needs to double by 2020?
Yes, but it is by 2050.
Otherwise the CAP will be about issuing food coupons to consumers. That is what will happen. Is the commitment non-negotiable?
I cannot give a commitment for the other 26 member states of the European Union.
The Minister can do so for Ireland, however.
Absolutely. My commitment is to pillar one. I have outlined that very clearly at every opportunity we have had to discuss the future of the Common Agricultural Policy post-2013.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
