Vol. 862 No. 3
1. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the steps he is taking to protect the incomes of dairy farmers in view of the sudden drop in the price of milk; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48485/14]
As the Minister is aware, Teagasc is forecasting a drop of 50% in profits in the dairy sector next year. It also forecasts that the price of milk will fall to 27 cent a litre. This is particularly challenging for farmers with high borrowings. We need to know what the Minister is doing about this at national and European level.
I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue. Prices in dairy markets are impacted on by global events. We sell dairy products throughout the world, as well as in the European Union. Factors such as production levels in the United States, New Zealand, Australia and the European Union, on the back of very good harvests and quite good weather for the past two years, have meant that for the first time in many years supply has been increasing faster than the demand for and consumption of dairy products. On top of this, the embargo imposed on European countries by Russia has also impacted on the agrifood trade.
A combination of factors has resulted in Teagasc and others predicting that we may see a sharp reduction in dairy prices in the coming months, for which, of course, we need to plan and prepare. It is fair to say most people anticipate this will be a temporary price reduction, but we still need to prepare for it. At national level, I have met all of the banks to discuss the issue. Some dairy farmers did take on significant debts in planning for expansion and we have always said such debts should be on the basis of the price being 28 cent a litre and no more than this. That said, of course, some will be put under pressure. Banks need to show flexibility and have stated they will do so because it is in their interests to ensure farmers stay in business. We are working with Teagasc at an advisory level in working with dairy farmers to get them through a difficult pricing period.
At European level, the European Commission can use three tools under the Common Agricultural Policy - aid to private storage, export refunds and intervention pricing. This week the Council of Ministers made it clear to the Commissioner who happens to be Irish, Mr. Hogan, that the Commission should be open to using these tools in full as a way of stabilising markets in the new year, if necessary. It has already shown a willingness-----
I will let the Minister back in again.
-----to use aid to private storage, from which Irish companies have benefited significantly.
I ask Members to keep an eye on the clock because I do not want to interrupt.
Several Members asked the same question.
I know, but I am obliged to stick to the time limit.
Absolutely agreed. We must recognise that this it is a world issue and the Minister need not spell this out. The one certainty in life at present is that there is total uncertainty. We knew from the very beginning that price volatility would always be a big issue. The Minister mentioned the ban imposed by Russia. That is the type of issue which happens out of the blue and cannot be foreseen, but it must be built into the calculations. At what level has the Minister proposed that European Union intervention, in all of its forms, clip in? Milk must be at a realistic price, well north of 27 cent a litre, as otherwise we will have a problem. At what level has the Minister proposed to the European Union that the market supports should clip in and begin to stabilise the market? There is no point in allowing a big crisis to arise and then finding it is too late to deal with it.
It is important that we do not talk ourselves into a crisis. The price in Ireland is still above 30 cent a litre. We are in a period during which many dairy farmers are in drystock farming and not as much milk is being produced. The key issues are anticipating what the price will be for milk in the spring and allowing co-ops to offload much of the produce they have in storage, whether it be cheese, butter or powder. To date, the Commission has facilitated the provision of storage assistance which has been very helpful. Ireland has drawn down 40% of the funding available at European level for the provision of storage assistance in the case of butter. We would like to see the provision of storage assistance expanded to include cheese. This was the case, but the Commission pulled back, largely because of Italy - it was a huge ask - which was not in the spirit of what we were trying to do.
On the intervention price, we have made it very clear that it equates to 21 cent a litre and that we cannot allow milk prices to reduce to this level. If we are to use an intervention price, it must be at a more realistic level, certainly well above a figure in the mid-twenties.
The Minister can sing it. There is another issue at European level.
Now that the Minister has a good friend there - the Commissioner - perhaps he might take up this issue with him to get him to resolve it. The Minister knows that many farmers have a huge Damocles sword hanging over their heads in the form of the superlevy. This is an issue the European Union could tackle immediately. As a totality or unit, it is under the production limit and the quota.
Yes.
It is time for the Minister to get this issue sorted out in the European Union in which there is a new Commissioner, but the Minister might not have heard of him. He is a guy called Monsieur Hogan. He used to be Mr. Hogan or Minister Hogan when he was here. Perhaps the Minister might go and tell him to sort out the superlevy issue.
I have spoken to Commissioner Hogan about these issues on many occasions in the past couple of weeks. I am glad to say we speak regularly. The intervention I made this week, when I called for an open mind on the use of intervention measures, is on record. If this tool is to be used, there should be a realistic intervention price, as otherwise it will act as a price drag in reality. Nobody has been championing the superlevy issue more than me in the past two years. Anyone who has been following the EU debate will know that Ireland leads on it practically every time. The truth is that even though a majority of EU member states would like something to be done about the superlevy, we could not and still cannot get a qualified majority to agree at Council level. There is a particular eagerness to change butterfat levels, which would have helped to solve the problem. In effect, it would have given us an extra 1.5% or 2%. We are looking to do other things in the case of the superlevy. For example, we are trying to extend the repayment period over a number of years. This would make the cashflow issues pertaining to the superlevy much more manageable. We are making good progress in that regard.
2. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to outline his views on the predictions of the Teagasc economics unit and the Irish Dairy Board of a lowering of dairy returns over the next year and the way he proposes to deal with this. [48483/14]
As this question is practically the same as the one the Minister has just dealt with, I will not dwell too much on it.
Yes. I can go into it in a little more detail.
The Teagasc economic unit and the Irish Dairy Board have predicted that milk prices could decrease to as little as 27 cent a litre. This would be unsustainable for many farmers. I refer to many of the smaller producers, rather than the highly intensive producers. How does the Minister hope to deal with the smaller producers who could go to the wall in such circumstances?
It is important to be accurate. Teagasc has stated it thinks the average price next year will be 27 cent a litre. Everybody is predicting that prices will get stronger at the back end of the year, but the price might fall below 27 cent a litre. On the basis of what Teagasc is predicting, this might not be the bottom, but it might not necessarily come to pass. There has been a slight increase in some of the quoted milk prices in New Zealand in the past couple of days, from which I would not get too much encouragement, but we will see what happens. We will see quite a significant price change across Europe in January. However, we will wait and see.
It is not about whether one is a big or a small dairy farmer. Many of the bigger guys have taken on huge debt. While they might have economies of scale, they also have debt management issues. Many highly efficient small dairy farmers who are running very good family operations on 40, 50, or 60 milking cows have done well in the past couple of years. Deputies should not forget that farmers have seen the upside of price volatility in the past two years. The highest milk price ever seen was achieved during that timeframe. We are now potentially looking at the downside of price volatility. That is why we need to consider new pricing models for milk. This is already starting to happen in the industry. If farmers agreed to lock 40%, 50% or 60% of their milk into a medium-term pricing contract, that would take the peaks and troughs out of price volatility. It was very difficult to get farmers to do this in the past couple of years when prices were at an all-time high. They are certainly looking at doing it now. That is happening in grain markets also.
At a domestic level, we need to make sure the banks show the necessary flexibility to keep dairy farmers in business. Over a five year period practically every dairy farmer in the country will be profitable and running a good business. As I have said to Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív, we are pushing hard at European level for the Commission to be open to using the tools available to it. It will be very difficult to use export refunds because it is such an expensive approach. It is very unpopular outside the European Union because it is essentially seen as involving the dumping of produce. Any effort that can be made in terms of intervention pricing and aid to private storage can be of significant assistance in bringing pricing balance and a price floor to the market
I do not disagree with much of what the Minister is saying. All Deputies, including the Minister and me, have shared concerns about the effect of price volatility on weaker producers and smaller farmers. The past two years have been excellent for farmers. Dairy producers, in particular, have had a very good two years. The all-time high achieved earlier this year was a tremendous price for milk. The abolition of the quota will result in many other types of farming enterprise leaving these sectors and entering the dairy sector, but they will have to borrow a great deal of money to do so. The effect of price decreases on smaller producers who are producing at or perhaps below production level is much more magnified. Bigger producers, including those who have borrowed a great deal of money, are better able to sustain their businesses than smaller producers. That is my concern in this regard.
It is important to note that the Common Agricultural Policy has been designed to try to bring income balance to farmers also. This is one of the reasons we have direct payments. I remind the House that the average dairy farmer in Ireland receives a direct payment of €18,000 a year. That is the average payment. Some of the bigger guys receive much higher payments. Teagasc has predicted that the average annual income on dairy farms will drop from €64,000 or €65,000 to €34,000 next year. The €18,000 single farm payment becomes a much more important income support when there is such a significant decrease. We will be offering other supports such as disadvantaged area payments. New environmental schemes will be opening up. A new targeted agricultural modernisation scheme will be specifically tailored for farmers in the dairy sector who want to invest. Young farmers will receive 60% grant aid for this investment. There are, therefore, many supports available. The real challenge is in preparing the market for the dramatic price volatility we are seeing from last year to next year. We need to insulate and help farmers to hedge against this price volatility for the future. That is where Ireland can introduce new pricing models and new thinking, rather than relying on the Commission to do so. The Commission needs to be open to acting on dramatic price drops at European level, as I think it will be.
The Minister mentioned the new pricing model in his initial response and has done so again now. I take it that this model involves processors locking in a certain amount.
Yes.
That would be a very good idea, as it would give an element of certainty to the producer. If one third of what is produced was locked in at a sustainable price, it would assist in having a soft landing in the market and help those who are not able to withstand the volatility of the market. It is something in which I would see a great deal of merit.
I thank the Deputy for being constructive. That is exactly what we are trying to do. For almost two years Glanbia has been encouraging its members to lock a portion of their milk into a pricing model that guarantees a margin for farmers. When it does deals with the customers to which it sells its products on the back of that locked-in price, it locks in a price also. Its big customers - the buyers of powder, cheese and butter, etc. - are also looking to agree locked-in prices in order to take the uncertainty out of this volatile market. The more we can put medium-term and long-term pricing contracts in place, not just in the dairy sector but also in other areas, the better. I met malting barley growers yesterday who were doing the exact same thing. It is great that the IFA is showing such leadership on this issue. Farmers would not lock everything in - they would lock in a portion of their product at a price they would know would be certain for a period of one, two or three years. They can take their chances on the highs and lows of the market after this.
The same happened in the sugar beet industry.
They had contracts.
3. Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if tier 3 farmers are eligible to apply for the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme; if the funding is in place to facilitate these payments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48481/14]
Many farmers around the country who do not fall into the priority 1 and priority 2 categories under the new green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, are very anxious.
Many of these farmers were in REPS. They have small farms of 30, 40, 50 or 60 acres. Currently, they are very concerned that they are not in a position to go into the first or second priority categories. Are tier 3 farmers eligible for the green low carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, and if funding is in place, can we ensure the farmers outside the first and second priority categories could get into it?
We are taking close to 30,000 farmers into GLAS in the first go.
They must fit into a category.
I will go through the tiers shortly. We are trying to get as many into it as we can. There will be a second phase in which to take others, as we want to have 50,000 farmers in GLAS over the next few years. In tier 1, all farmers with priority environmental assets, PEAs, get first priority access to the scheme in year one and subsequent years. If any of the following PEAs are applicable to the holding, they must be chosen and the relevant actions planned: these are farmland habitat, or Natura locations; farmland birds, from hen harrier to grey partridge, corncrake, waders and so on; commonage land; a high status water area; rare breeds and so on. In the absence of any listed PEAs, a farmer, whether beef, sheep or dairy, with a whole farm stocking rate exceeding 140 kg livestock manure nitrogen per hectare - in other words, an intensive farm - or a farmer with more than 30 hectares of arable land will be considered under tier 1. That is because we are trying to get a mix predominantly of farmers in Natura or commonage areas and so on but with some intensive farmers as well.
With tier 2 we are considering farmers in vulnerable water areas, and this is primarily about low-emission slurry spreading, minimum tillage, green cover establishment from a sown crop, wild bird cover and so on. With tier 3 we consider everybody else, and any applicants would have a list of elements that can be applied on farms. We hope to get a number of farmers in on tier 3 as well. Tiers 1 and 2 will be prioritised but with 30,000 farmers or so coming into GLAS, we will be able to get quite a number in from tier 3 as well. Not everybody will get in the first time around but the vast majority of farmers will do so.
As with the single farm payment, the Minister is facilitating people with designations in the first priority category, which I understand. The second tier includes intensive and arable farmers. If we do not ensure the smaller farmer with up to 70 or 80 acres is included in tier 2, they will be pushed out. Some of these farmers came out pretty badly from the single farm payment system. Listening to farmers around the country, some feel that an intensive, arable or big farmer can get into this scheme but others are caught in a trap because they are not a priority. The Minister might refer to trailing shoe equipment but there are parts of the country down our way where such equipment could not be used. The farms are so small that seeds for wild bird cover would not be sown. We must try to facilitate those people caught in this way.
It is important to consider my record in this area. When we have had to choose who would go into schemes, we have given small farmers priority. In the past number of budgets, when we have introduced schemes, such as the agri-environment options scheme, we have given priority to the kind of farms mentioned by the Deputy. If we must choose with GLAS and implement criteria because we have more applicants than places, they will be put in place in a way that will have the most deserving farmers get in. It is important that GLAS would not be seen solely as income support, and this must be sold to the Commission and seen in real terms as giving an environmental dividend on farmland across the country.
I assure the Deputy that small farms will not be and have never been discriminated against by me. This is about an environmental dividend. There are other schemes dealing with disadvantaged areas and support for small farms on island communities, which exemplify how we have introduced measures that have never before been done. We are more than aware that we need to keep small family farms intact and on the land, even in disadvantaged areas. We will tailor schemes to support that process in future, just as we have done in the past couple of years.
I am not saying the Minister is discriminating against anyone. If we consider the conditions set down, there is a stipulation for farms to have a whole farm stocking rate exceeding 140 kg livestock manure nitrogen per hectare-----
That is tier 1.
-----or be an arable farmer. If a farmer has 40, 50 or 60 acres but does not fit the criteria - it may be bad land - is there a facility to enter the scheme? I do not think such farmers can get into it.
There is. We introduced the option for a more intensive level of stocking rate for tier 1 because we wanted a mix of farmers. The Commission indicated a wish for many different farmers in the new environmental scheme rather than it solely being for commonage and Natura lands or small, disadvantaged farms. Intensive farmers also need to be thinking about the environment with respect to the GLAS. The reality is they will be a minority of farmers, although some people may not want to hear me say that. The vast majority of farmers coming into tier 1 will be of the type we discussed earlier in commonage and Natura lands. There will also be smaller farmers coming in under tiers 1, 2 and 3. In many ways, I suspect they may be prioritised, although if we have to choose, we must examine the criteria, depending on who applies and how many applicants there are. If we accept 30,000 farmers into GLAS in the first round, we may get between 35,000 and 40,000 people applying. We will have to make some choices. I assure the Deputy that we will try to ensure every type of farm and structure will get into GLAS at some level.
4. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine when the rural development plan for Ireland will be approved; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48486/14]
This relates to when the rural development plan for Ireland will be approved by the European Union. We debated this the last day the Minister took questions and he promised to come before the agriculture committee to outline the concerns of the European Union. Unfortunately, this has not happened. Will the Minister outline his best guess of when the rural development plan will be agreed?
I am more than willing to come before the committee but it is about finding the time to do so, given everybody's schedule. I expect we will have that discussion early in the new year. I hope I have demonstrated that I am not shy about coming before the committee to answer questions.
The rural development programme has been a frustrating process for me as we had our plans in early and we submitted them well in advance of the deadline. The problem for the Commission is it has 118 different rural development programmes for which it is trying to get approval, and Ireland is one of them. Undoubtedly, the approval process will carry over to the new year. There is an added complication as if rural development programmes are not approved, there must be a carry-over of budgets from one year to the next, which also poses a new challenge for the Commission it must overcome. There is a series of elements stacking up.
The Commission has taken on extra staff and resources to try to make progress on the rural development programmes but in reality we will not get approval for our programme in time to be able to open schemes as early as I would like, which is in the first two months of next year. We have sought an alternative way of opening schemes, anticipating approval of the rural development programme at some stage in the first half of next year or, I hope, towards the end of the first quarter next year. I have discussed with the Commissioner - it has been checked from a legal perspective - whether there could be a letter of comfort indicating the Commission is happy with our schemes in principle but that formal approval of the rural development programme will take a bit longer. If we get that letter of comfort for the Department of Finance, I am confident we can open schemes on the back of it.
I am hoping to get the letter of comfort in January so that we can open schemes toward the end of the month or in early February. The green low-carbon agri-environment scheme is a priority because people are anxious to get on with it, but we are seeking the same assurances regarding the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme and a range of other supports. It is a realistic timeframe to seek to have the letter of comfort early in the new year, with a view to obtaining formal rural development programme approval later. In the meantime, we can get schemes open, which is really what farmers are seeking. I am being as blunt and open as I can be on this.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Given the inevitable delays that will arise, even allowing for this shimmy - it is a welcome shimmy, if it comes out - we are still looking at February before GLAS will be announced. If we take into account all of the complexities involved in requiring 30,000 farmers to draw up plans, does the Minister accept it is very unlikely that GLAS money will be paid out next year, even though he has made provision for same in the Estimate? Has he given consideration to a contingency plan for how that money might be paid to farmers legitimately in some other way? The value of direct payments to farmers is falling dramatically.
Second, it is the Minister's intention to introduce a genomics scheme. My understanding, however, is that the EU has raised several principle questions along the lines that the scheme is linked too much with Harvest 2020 and not sufficiently linked with rural development. Is that scheme likely to open in February? If not, we are looking at a huge slice of money farmers were expecting next year which might not be available.
What farmers want is to have a new scheme open as soon as we can open it, and that is what we will try to deliver. Whether it requires a letter of comfort to achieve it or not, farmers are not interested in that type of detail. They want a date from me for when they can apply to the scheme and put their plans in place so we can assess them, make decisions as to who is in and lock people into the scheme for a five-year period.
I have consistently said that we would not have the scheme up and running until September next year at the earliest. This is in a context where we are looking to accept 30,000 farmers into it. If we can get the scheme open in February, we will do everything we can to deliver an application process that allows farmers to apply on time and planners to put plans in place on time, which should not, by the way, be too complicated. Then we can look at fast-tracking the assessment of those applications with a view to staying as close as possible to the September target. We have budgeted some €20 million for a three-month payment under GLAS for next year. I am determined to get some payments out next year under the scheme but, most importantly, I want to get 30,000 farmers into the scheme for the next five years and get it up and running as soon as we can.
We are having difficulty with the Commission regarding the genomics scheme, but that does not mean we will not get agreement on it. We continue to have intense discussions with the Commission explaining what the proposal is all about. It takes a while to get one's head around what we are trying to do here. It is a climate change, emissions-based initiative as well as a genomics initiative. We are hopeful of getting it through on that basis, but it is taking time. We are making great progress with the Commission on GLAS, by the way.
One of the unforeseen delays in getting GLAS off the ground could be that farmers will look for a little extra time to get their plans in. The Minister needs to get 30,000 applications; 25,000 or 20,000 will not be good enough. There could be several unforeseen delays. Are we still in the situation the Minister outlined previously such that he cannot allow GLAS to start until this entire tranche of plans has been assessed because of the issue raised by Deputy Fitzmaurice, namely, that they will have to be graded to see who is in and who is out? There can be no early starters; everybody must start on the same day. Has there been any movement on that situation to allow, for example, tier 1 applicants to commence a little earlier and so on?
Does the Minister expect the genomics scheme to be covered in the letter of comfort he is seeking? If it is not and if there is any delay in agreeing the final rural development programme, farmers will see a large hole in their pockets next year.
We are seeking a letter of comfort on all the schemes, not just GLAS. We want to have negotiated and agreed the detail of our RDP with the Commission, but the formal process of approval takes time. In many countries, there are multiple RDPs in operation. In the United Kingdom, for example, there is a separate programme for each of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We have only one RDP but the formal approval process still takes time. If we thrash out all of the remaining issues around GLAS, beef genomics and the other proposals we are working through by mid-January, we hope to get a letter of comfort in the second half of that month, which will allow us to open schemes. We will be preparing to get them open as soon as we receive the letter of comfort. As I said, the objective is that the letter will apply to all schemes, not just GLAS.
5. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will provide an update on the negotiations on the Common Fisheries Policy which took place at the meeting of the Agricultural and Fisheries Council, AGRIFISH, on 15 and 16 December 2014. [48484/14]
At its meeting on 2 December, the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine discussed with the Minister the proposals from the Commission regarding the future of Irish fishing, cuts in quota and so forth. Following his negotiations at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 15 and 16 December, is the Minister satisfied he got the best deal possible for the Irish fishing industry into the future?
I am satisfied we got the best deal possible for Irish fishermen. It is not the perfect deal, but it is a very significant improvement on where we were three days ago. In terms of fish landed value, we went into the negotiations standing to lose more than €18 million in the whitefish sector alone, which accounts for the vast majority of fishermen. We have come out of the negotiations with the value of quota for landed fish for next year increased by some €1.5 million. These are independent figures compiled by Bord Iascaigh Mhara on the basis of current fish prices. In other words, we have gone from minus €18 million to plus €1.5 million.
The greatest priority for us going into the negotiations was the prawn catch, or nephrops as they are known in fishing terminology. Half of our whitefish industry in income terms is accounted for by prawns. The catch is worth €59 million each year in an industry that will have an overall value next year of €123 million. Half of its total value is comprised of one stock, in other words, and almost every fishing community has an interest in that stock, from Rossaveal right around to Howth and encompassing the whole of the south, south-west and east coasts. The proposal from the Commission was for a 14% reduction in prawn quota. We got a deal for a 3% increase, which will raise the value of the prawn catch next year to just over €60 million.
We also achieved significant progress in other areas, with a very positive outcome for fishermen in the west, north west and north. In the case of hake, for instance, a proposed reduction has been turned into a significant increase. We succeeded in changing substantial proposed reductions in megram and monkfish to a roll-over position, which means we get the same quota next year. Likewise, in the case of skates and rays in the Irish Sea, which is a very important fishery for us, a proposed 20% reduction is now a roll-over.
The one problem area is the Celtic Sea mixed fishery for cod, haddock and whiting. Going into these negotiations, the Commission was proposing a 64% cut in cod quota, a 41% cut in haddock quota and a 14% cut in whiting quota.
The outcome has been a cut of roughly 12% in respect of each of those stocks.
We have won these arguments and made them on the back of science. Therefore, we are not taking irresponsible decisions to try to be popular with the fishing industry. We have made good decisions on the back of science and conservation measures that the industry has bought into. This is a good outcome. There are some challenges with the Celtic Sea, of course, but on the whole this is a much better deal than many were expecting.
I commend the Minister on his work, and also the industry, which played a very positive role. The Northern Ireland Minister, Ms Michelle O'Neill, also played a very positive role.
The Minister, Deputy Coveney, mentioned the cuts for the Celtic Sea affecting haddock, cod and whiting, and their effect in the areas in question. Are the cuts on an annual basis?
Yes. Just for next year.
Just for next year. Can the Minister renegotiate after next year?
Every December we renegotiate.
Those of us from coastal communities realise the added value of fisheries in coastal communities such as Kilmore Quay, where everybody is tied in to onshore work in factories and small shops. They are all benefiting from the cod, haddock and whiting fisheries. Can the Minister assure us today that the quotas can be renegotiated after a year?
Yes.
What is the position on discards? Will the Minister give us his views on that and on how the industry in question will be affected?
The Celtic Sea fishery is a really complex one. There are species other than cod, haddock and whiting caught in the Celtic Sea on which we have had good news, but the cod, haddock and whiting fishery is a big one, particularly in respect of the whiting element as we have a bigger quota than France and the United Kingdom, who share the fishery with us. The industry took the initiative here and said it would introduce conservation measures. It is effectively putting escape hatches in nets for small fish, which is the correct and responsible thing to do. On the back of that initiative, it has got a better deal in terms of quota.
With the Marine Institute, we got up-to-date science on the cod stock, in particular. A 64% reduction in the cod quota was proposed for next year, which would have been devastating for the industry. However, on the back of the science, the recommendation was for 26%. This totally changed the discussion. Therefore, the combination of the new science coming from the Marine Institute and the new conservation measures, involving the changing of the gear we use by introducing a 120 sq. mm mesh panel, which is essentially like a sunroof slotted into a net that allows juvenile fish to swim out, allowed us to change the conversation totally. While we had to introduce cuts, they were much more modest than would otherwise have been the case.
We are seeing strong recruitment on the ground at present for both cod and haddock in the Celtic Sea. I anticipate this will give us improved quotas over the next couple of years.
I acknowledge that Minister Michelle O'Neill had a good input, particularly in respect of prawns. We share a very important prawn fishery with Northern Ireland in the Irish Sea. The Minister made a very strong argument on moving from a -14 position to +3 position. She was very helpful on that.
I have been lobbied continuously on the traditional swap between Ireland and Belgium in respect of the plaice quota in area VII, f and g. Perhaps the Minister will be able to answer my question on this. The figures I have indicate that the quota received for 2013 was 197 tonnes. Belgium was given 125 tonnes in a swap, which left 72 tonnes for the Irish vessels. In 2012, the quota was 197 tonnes, again with 72 tonnes left for the Irish vessels. In 2011, the quota was 200 tonnes, with 126 tonnes given to Belgium, leaving 74 tonnes for the Irish vessels. What is the meaning of the traditional swap? Do we get something in return from Belgium?
Yes.
What do the Irish fishermen get in return?
I did not get a chance to mention the discards issue for next year. We are about to change fundamentally the way in which we fish, for the better. This was negotiated, I am glad to say, by Ireland during the Irish Presidency in a new Common Fisheries Policy. We are introducing, from 1 January, which is in a few weeks, an obligation to land all pelagic fish. This time next year, we will be introducing the obligation to land for the whitefish sector. We need to work and are working with the industry to bring that about because it will be good news for everybody. It means we will not be dumping hundreds of thousands of dead fish into the sea because fishermen do not have a quota to land them in port. That will be history, I am glad to say. We are figuring out a practical way of making progress on the discards ban at present.
On the swap issue, every year we swap with other countries, including Belgium, and particularly France because it has a lot of quota. We decide on the fish that are valuable to our industry in respect of which we need to get a larger quota and what fish we could swap that are of less value to our industry in order to get those valuable stocks. I assure the Deputy that we get something back every time we swap. In general, we get back something more valuable to our industry than what we are giving. Swapping occurs all the time. We have a very good relationship with France and Belgium. They are seeking extra quota for flatfish, in particular, and we may well be looking for more prawns or other whitefish. We negotiate this with the industry and do not make a unilateral decision in the Department to swap. We ask fishermen and the fishing industry representatives what they are looking for and where the pressure points are and we swap accordingly.
The best traders in the world.
It is trade.
