Vol. 750 No. 1
1 Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the number of farmers who will be affected by the announced reduction in the disadvantaged areas scheme; and the number of farmers affected by reductions in the REP scheme. [40087/11]
Many difficult decisions had to be made by the Government in the light of the recognised ongoing weaknesses in the public finances. In that regard, savings had to be found in my Department's 2012 budget, in the context of which a decision was taken to limit the funding for the 2012 disadvantaged areas scheme to €190 million. To achieve this saving, priority is given to active farmers who farm exclusively within the disadvantaged areas and there is a proposed range of technical adjustments to the qualifying criteria of the scheme. As the disadvantaged areas scheme forms part of the 2007-13 partially EU-funded rural development scheme, the approval of the EU Commission is being sought for the proposed changes. However, the reduction in the level of funding under the scheme will not have any impact on amounts drawn down from the EU under the rural development programme.
In regard to the proposed changes, I am pleased the savings can be achieved without reducing the rate of aid per hectare and with no reduction in the maximum area payable of 34 hectares. That means the reduction will have no impact on the level of aid payable to active farmers with holdings made up entirely of disadvantaged area land.
The proposed adjustments include increasing the minimum stocking density requirement from 0.15 livestock units per hectare to 0.30 livestock units per hectare in respect of 2011, the reference year; calculating the stocking density over a retention period of six months, with the average calculated over the 12 month period; excluding horses, with the exception of equine breeding enterprises or other commercial horse enterprises; providing for reduced rates of aid where applicants hold both eligible and ineligible land, that is, non-disadvantaged areas land; and excluding land located more than 80 km from an applicant's main holding where that main holding is situated outside disadvantaged areas.
Perhaps the Minister could give the rest of his reply when Deputy Moynihan asks a supplementary question.
I will give a direct answer to the question. We do not have exact figures for the number of people who will be affected negatively by the changes to the disadvantaged areas scheme. The figure on REPS is much easier to calculate. There are 30,900 people in REPS 4 and they will experience a cut of 10% to their payments under the scheme.
I have three brief points, the first of which concerns disadvantaged areas. While the vast majority would welcome the initiative to prioritise active farmers, there is a particular group who will be badly affected by the change. Perhaps when the Minister knows the number that will be affected, he will let us know.
On a different matter, also related to the budget, what did the Minister hope would be achieved by the levy imposed on the dairy industry? There is a reaction from the industry thereto, particularly from farmers. What does the Minister hope to fund with the proceeds of the levy?
That is an entirely different question but I would be happy to try to answer it with the understanding of the Chair. We are trying to recognise the fact that, when quotas go after 2015, there will be a significant increase in the volume of milk being produced by dairy farmers. People anticipate that within the first 12 to 18 months, there could be an increase of between 15% and 20%. We must plan for that now by investing in new markets, developing products and building brands so that when there is a significant increase in the volume of milk we need to process and sell, there will not be price volatility as a consequence.
We have not announced the opening of a new dairy levy yet. Following a long and very constructive meeting with the Irish Dairy Board, I have agreed to have, between now and the end of February, consultation between my Department, the Irish Dairy Board, Bord Bia and farming organisations to establish and agree on the magnitude of the job that needs to be done over the next three years. This is to prepare for the dramatic change in the dairy industry and ensure we are using all the resources available to the State in organisations such as Bord Bia, where there is a lot of expertise, to complement what the Irish Dairy Board is already doing. It is not about one or the other but about the possibility of Bord Bia complementing and adding to the work the Irish Dairy Board is doing to expand and plan for new markets. The latter now understands where I am coming from; perhaps it did not last week. It is happy to proceed on that basis.
2 Deputy Michael Colreavy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his policy regarding genetically modified crops; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40089/11]
Responsibility for issues relating to the cultivation of genetically modified, GM, crops in Ireland rests with my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, while responsibility for GM foods rests with the Minister for Health, Deputy James Reilly. I have responsibility for issues relating to GM animal feed and, should it arise, the cultivation of authorised GM crops alongside conventional crops.
The use of authorised GM ingredients plays an important role in the supply of protein feed materials at affordable prices for the Irish livestock industry. In the mid to late 1990s Irish livestock farmers, in tandem with livestock farmers in many of the peripheral EU member states — particularly Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom — began to consider using higher-protein by-products from the US milling and distilling industries as the most cost-effective way of providing animal feed nutrition. Consequently, imports of maize gluten and distillers' dried grains from the US increased sharply in the decade 1996 to 2006, reaching a figure of almost 900,000 tonnes by 2006. The pig and poultry industries were also using increased imports of soya for similar reasons. Soybean is the main feed material used to balance protein content and quality in animal feed rations.
To address the changing situation and deal with the legitimate concerns being expressed by many European citizens, the EU enacted a suite of new legislation with safety and scientific assessment by the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA, being a central plank of the new procedures. On receipt of a positive opinion from EFSA of a proposal from a biotechnology company, the Commission would bring forward the authorisation proposal for consideration by the relevant regulatory committee. Each member state has an expert present at each committee. If a qualified majority vote is not achieved, either for or against the proposal, at the regulatory committee, the proposal is then referred to the Council of Ministers for consideration.
The Deputy will get a copy of my full reply so he will have it. In essence, the issue is that the Irish livestock industry, irrespective of whether one specialises in pigs, poultry, cattle or dairy, relies on protein, primarily from across the Atlantic, with GM content. Soybean meal is a good example. Up to 80% of US soybean meal has some GM content. Before it can be allowed to be used here, it must go through a very rigorous approval process. If it passes all the EU's food safety tests, I have no difficulty with it. If it does not pass them, we do not allow it into the country.
I thank the Minister. I am a little disappointed with his reply. My question was on genetically modified crops. Sinn Féin is of the view that the island of Ireland should be designated a GM-free zone. Those who propagate GM crops claim they do so to save the hungry poor of the world. They are doing no such thing; what they are doing is making a small number of people extremely wealthy.
That responsibility for genetic modification is spread over three Ministries is unsatisfactory. There is enough international experience to show GM crops have not solved the problem of food supply and that they have the potential to damage other crops. Their promotion inhibits research into more traditional and natural solutions to the problems associated with crop growth, disease and wastage.
It is important that people understand the role GM crops play in Irish agriculture. GM crops are not cultivated in Ireland nor am I aware of any plans to grow them alongside other commercial crops. The issue that arises for Ireland pertains to animal feed. If we are to create competitive industries, whether in pigs, poultry or other livestock sectors, we have to be cost competitive in sourcing feed. However, if we want the price of meal feed to increase for these sectors, we should reject the feed we currently import from the United States and elsewhere. I am not sure people want that, unless genuine health concerns arise. We have been eating meat that has been reared on feed containing GM elements for years. The idea that Ireland is GM free is not accurate in respect of the feed given to animals.
My focus is on ensuring the Irish agri-food sector is competitive and safe. New GM crops which may be part of feeds imported into Ireland will be rigorously tested. I have faith in the European systems from a scientific and safety point of view.
There was speculation in the media that licences were being prepared for the trial cultivation of GM crops in this country. Is the Minister aware of that speculation, which I have not heard confirmed by any authoritative source?
If licences are to be granted for trial cultivation of GM crops, applicants will have to undergo a lengthy and rigorous process beforehand. I am not aware of any specific developments in this area but if it is happening I would be happy to take note of the Deputy's concerns in order to ensure rigorous assessment procedures are followed.
3 Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will provide details of the full extent of his compliance with the decentralisation programme including details of premises bought or leased, staff which have moved location under the terms of the programme and communications systems which have been installed or upgraded as a consequence of the programme; his assessment of the impact the scheme has had on operations in his Department; his assessment of same in respect of the cancellation of the programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40240/11]
As the Deputy will be aware, the original Government decision on the decentralisation of my Department was that 600 headquarter posts would move to Portlaoise, 100 posts in the local offices in Cork city would move to Fermoy and up to 100 posts in the laboratories in Cork and Limerick would move to Macroom. The proposed moves to Fermoy and Macroom were initially deferred for review in 2011. On foot of this review, these projects have now been cancelled on the basis that there was no permanent accommodation or advance party in place.
The fisheries function was transferred to my Department in 2007 and the move of that function to Clonakilty is complete. Some 76 fisheries staff have been relocated to purpose built accommodation in Clonakilty which they share with the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority and BIM staff. That collective approach makes a lot of sense.
By far the largest of the decentralisation projects undertaken by my Department was the Portlaoise project. My Department currently has 460 staff based in temporary accommodation in seven locations in Portlaoise. The Department's original decentralisation implementation plan allowed for a phased move to Portlaoise so as to minimise risk, aid continuity of business and maintenance of the services delivered to stakeholders. Since the programme began some 300 posts have moved to Portlaoise.
Following the recent Government announcement, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, my Department and the OPW have been reviewing the accommodation requirements in Portlaoise.
My Department has a robust information technology structure and makes use of the most advanced systems for doing business and delivering services to our customers. Voice and data communication links and equipment are used to facilitate communication between locations. Prior to the announcement of the decentralisation programme my Department was familiar with dealing with regionalised structures and therefore was well placed to deal with the complexity of such a programme. It is acknowledged that challenges arose but they were managed so as to cause as little disruption as possible to the Department's business and its customers. I am satisfied that the Department's systems and programmes are fully operational and that my Department is operating effectively and efficiently.
I did not support the decentralisation programme but it is appropriate to decentralise functions in respect of certain Departments. This question and similar questions I tabled for other Departments seek to determine our liabilities now that the programme has been cancelled. It will not be clean because staff have moved, computer systems and other supports have been put in place and contractual arrangements have been agreed. In respect of Portlaoise, how much has been spent on temporary accommodation and, if permanent accommodation has been identified, is it in the ownership of the State and will further expenditure be required in respect of it? If the Minister does not have answers to my questions today, when is he likely to have the relevant information?
Like the Deputy, I had serious concerns about the decentralisation programme and I set out my views clearly while I was in opposition. It was a populist move which made no sense and it cost the country a fortune. We are trying to reverse many of the crazy decisions that were taken on the basis of winning votes rather than doing something sensible.
Having said that, we are stuck with what we have. Certain elements of the decentralisation programme were quite successful, an example of which is the relocation to Clonakilty. Other decentralisation projects were completed successfully long before the major decentralisation announcement. Applications, whether for the Department of Education and Skills or my Department, do not have to be processed in Dublin. The work done in Portlaoise does not need to be moved back to Dublin.
However, it is not satisfactory that staff in Portlaoise are accommodated in seven different buildings. We are in discussions with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and the OPW on the matter. The three options available to us are consolidation of the Portlaoise offices, extensions to Government offices in the town or construction of a new building to accommodate all the staff. We will assess and cost these options. Clearly, we cannot afford to spend a lot in terms of capital investment but we need to achieve efficiencies. The process will be completed without a negative impact on the services provided from Portlaoise.
I presume the Minister is also engaging with NAMA. When does he expect to make a final decision on the accommodation arrangements?
The honest answer is when we are ready. We are not going to rush the process because I want to ensure the Department is efficiently run. We employ a large number of staff in Portlaoise and they are doing a good job. I would like to consolidate them under one, two or three roofs rather than seven if that can reduce costs. It will take time to work out how we can best achieve that objective but we will be completely transparent and people will have the relevant information as soon as it is available.
NAMA's job is to maximise the return on the properties it controls. If it has a role to play in regard to properties in Portlaoise I am happy to engage with it. I am not aware of any ongoing conversation between my Department and NAMA, however.
4 Deputy John Browne asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine in the context of having a level playing field in the implementation of EU law, the severe hardship forced upon Irish fishermen due to having no access at present for whitefish trawlers and gillnetters and only very limited access for prawn trawlers if he intends to proceed immediately to re-open the Irish sea demersal fisheries; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40088/11]
The EU cod recovery plan, Regulation 2342/2008, established a long-term plan for cod stock, covering the setting of total allowable catches, TACs, and quotas each year, and limiting effort in terms of time spent fishing at sea in each area. The areas covered of interest to Ireland are the Irish Sea and area VIa, which is west of Scotland and north-west of Ireland. Under the cod recovery plan, the TAC, quota and fishing effort for cod have been cut each year since 2008.
Under the terms of the 2008 EU regulation, a specified number of days at sea were allocated annually to each member state for specified gear types in the TAC and quota regulation. The effort set to date for 2011 involved a 25% cut on that allocated for the previous year. The regulation, under Article 13, permitted the allocation of additional effort for highly selective gear — the Swedish grid, which I am sure my colleague knows about — and cod-avoiding fishing trips.
The EU regulation delegated responsibility to the member state for the implementation of the cod effort allocations. In Ireland, a group comprising industry representatives, the Marine Institute, BIM and the Department made recommendations on the arrangements each year for each area and gear type, which were implemented. The group has been meeting on a regular basis since 2008. In fact, I am sure the former Minister of State was involved in meeting some of those groups.
In area VIa, an area off Greencastle is closed for six months each year to protect juvenile cod under Article 13 of the regulation. This closure delivers reduced cod mortality by the Irish fleet each year, and on that basis Ireland claims back effort. In addition, in area VIa we also claim back the full 25% cut applied to all effort in deeper waters, as allowed in the regulation on the basis that cod is not generally found in these deeper waters. In the Irish Sea, we did not introduce specific measures to reduce cod mortality in 2009 or 2010 and accordingly have not been in a position to claim back any of the effort cut each year.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
When all available fishing effort was used up, the general whitefish fishery and the nephrops fishery in the Irish Sea were closed in October, while the gillnet fishery was closed in September. In response to the closure, we introduced a scheme that allowed for a nephrops fishery on the basis that the vessels use a Swedish grid, a highly selective gear, and accordingly reduce the amount of cod in catches to less than 1.5%.
The European Commission introduced a regulation on 23 November 2011 implementing cuts to the allocation of fishing effort to certain member states for 2011. The UK was not accepting of the Commission's assessment of the effort used and the quantity of fishing effort available to it as set down in the regulation. The regulation imposing cuts on effort for 2011 has been repealed by the European Commission. The reason given is that the effort figures will be reviewed with a view to correcting them and that a new regulation will be adopted after that work is done.
I understand there have been substantial discussions between the European Commission and the UK about the implementation of the EU cod recovery plan. This was raised by my Department as a priority issue of concern at a meeting involving the Polish Presidency, the European Commission and departmental officials last Friday, 9 December, in the context of Ireland's having closed fisheries in the Irish Sea in 2011. The Commission officials confirmed that Ireland had implemented the regime correctly in accordance with the provisions of the EU regulation. This will be an important element of the discussions at the Fisheries Council this week, including in the context of the Commission's proposal for a zero TAC for cod in both the Irish Sea and area VIa. I will be carefully monitoring the European Commission's approach to the implementation of effort with a view to ensuring that any agreed approach to the allocation and monitoring of effort is applicable across all member states. In the meantime, further trials are being planned in the Irish Sea this week of the use of more selective fishing gear in our fisheries with a view to being in a position to maximise fishing opportunities while protecting cod stocks in 2012.
I thank the Minister for his reply, but I am sure he is aware that fishermen are concerned that other countries, notably the UK, are using completely different means of operating the cod recovery programme. That, in effect, means their fishermen are continuing to fish in the Irish Sea while Irish vessels are confined to port. They feel this is totally unfair. How can the Minister justify not allowing Irish fishermen to fish while the British have got around the regulations by using a different system?
British boats may be fishing, but they have not fully got around the system yet. What has happened here is that the European Commission introduced a regulation on 23 November implementing cuts to the allocation of fishing effort to certain member states, and the UK has not accepted the Commission's assessment of fishing effort used and the quantity of effort available as set down in that regulation. As a result of an ongoing negotiation between the Commission and the UK, that regulation has been withdrawn for the moment while it is reviewed. That review is under way and it will have consequences next year. We are going into important negotiations from tomorrow in the December Council that will probably go on until Saturday. We have met our commitments and have received recognition of that from the Commission in terms of our obligations in the Irish Sea prawn fishery.
Last week, we raised the issue of the treatment of the UK directly with the Commission. The one thing upon which I will insist at the Council this week is that Irish boats get the same treatment as British boats in terms of the limitations in the Irish Sea, even though there is a mismatch at the moment because the review is ongoing.
I wish the Minister well in his discussions over the next few days. While he is in Brussels, is he prepared to meet with the Irish fishery people to discuss this issue? I am sure he will have meetings with them to discuss the suggested cuts. They are concerned that the playing field is no longer level because of the way the British are now allowed to operate.
For the record, I already met with industry representatives on this issue either last week or at the end of the previous week — I cannot remember — and we went through the issues in detail in preparation for the Council meeting this week. They know my views on this and they know I am not happy about it. We cannot have different treatment for different countries in the same waters. However, Britain is a key ally for us this week in some of the deals we need to get done, so over the next three days we need to balance our ability to get a good deal for Irish fishermen, across all species, with the need to raise a significant red flag on this issue to ensure our fleet does not get different treatment from any other fleet just because it can apply more political pressure. It is a question of boxing clever politically so that the TAC negotiations, as well as this issue, are resolved satisfactorily.
5 Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine in view of the decision in 2012 to allow the National Asset Management Agency to change upward-only rent reviews if he will now to act to assist tenants in fishery harbour centres and implement a NAMA-type initiative. [40345/11]
I have a long reply here which I will not read out, because I want to deal with the issue head-on. The Deputy will be aware of much of what is in the reply. Essentially, we have contractual arrangements with the people who lease properties within fisheries harbours that are owned by my Department, and each case must be dealt with on an individual basis. Most rental leases that were established pre-2008 contain the now infamous upward-only rent review clause. In most cases, we have not used that clause and have agreed not to increase rents since then. In fact, I do not think there has been any increase in rents since 2008. However, I am not sure that is enough. We also have a facility within our Department for people who are struggling to pay their rent in our harbours to establish a payment schedule that may ease that burden, and I encourage people to use that.
I am more than aware of what the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, said on budget day about NAMA's new approach towards businesses that are under pressure due to exorbitantly high rents and that are subject to legal contracts that contain upward-only rent review clauses. He said that NAMA would consider these cases individually with a view to potentially volunteering rent reductions in some cases. I would like to think my Department can do something similar, so I have asked my officials to examine a mechanism that retains a legitimate contract while recognising the fact that upward-only rent reviews should never have been put into contracts.
If someone who is currently renting a property is under significant pressure because of the high rent he or she is paying, which is having a negative impact on his or her business, I do not want to charge him or her more than the current commercial rate through an upward-only rent review clause in his or her contract. I have asked my officials to establish a structure that will allow us to move forward in the way the Deputy is probably seeking. I hope we will have something on that by the end of January.
I thank the Minister for his response on this important issue. While the upward-only clause has not been invoked, there are many cases in which rents are exorbitant anyway and in which there is a strong case for renegotiation.
There are also cases where tenants have substantial arrears, but that should not be a barrier to the Department entering talks with them. They might be able to examine the possibility of discharging those arrears if they can secure a realistic review of the rent. These are businesses that are at imminent risk of having to close because of the level of rents being imposed by the Department.
There is also a huge imbalance across the country. In Killybegs rents might be four or five times higher than rents in ports on the east coast. The rents do not take account of the geographical location or the market values in those areas. Could the Minister ensure that his officials urgently engage with tenants? If they could start with a clean slate, people could negotiate and perhaps arrive at arrangements that would be better for everybody.
I will try to be helpful on this but a number of important things must be said. First, if there are large arrears outstanding, it is difficult for me to examine a new mechanism for calculating rent until those arrears are paid or there is an agreed payment plan in place to pay them. Nobody should hold back on paying arrears in the expectation of some type of amnesty because we cannot do that realistically. We must operate our fisheries harbours on a commercial basis. If I end up subsidising the cost of running fishing harbours with taxpayers' money, people will not thank me for it.
Let us not forget that these contracts were signed by both parties on a voluntary basis; there was no coercion involved. However, I accept that in some cases there has been a fundamental change in terms of commercial value and rental charges since those leases were signed. We will try to accommodate that change. However, I strongly advise people who have significant arrears with the Department that is very difficult for us to negotiate with anybody with huge lump sums of money outstanding. If a payment plan is put in place for them, we will try to be constructive on the other issues.
Some people might have mistakenly thought that if they withheld rent or said they could not afford to pay it, it might encourage the Department to enter into talks with them. However, I know from experience that it usually has the reverse outcome. It is important to keep as many businesses open as possible. As the Minister said, the leases were entered into voluntarily at the time but circumstances have changed to a huge degree and I am glad the Minister recognises that. I ask that his officials engage with people on trying to get rid of these legacy issues.
We need to be careful about some things in this regard. First, anything we do sets a precedent. I cannot have a situation where there will be an expectation that everybody's rent in fisheries harbours will be reduced dramatically. That will not happen. My commitment, however, is that I will not force people who cannot afford it to continue to pay rates that are above what the going rate should be because there happens to be an upward-only rent review clause. In other words, I want a fair assessment on a case by case basis. Where people feel they are being unfairly treated and overcharged, and their businesses are in trouble as a result, we wish to show some understanding. However, this is not moving towards some type of amnesty or a 10% reduction across the board or anything similar. We will examine cases and try to put structures in place to take account of that and, at the same time, facilitate the commercial running of fisheries harbours, which is the Department's responsibility.
