Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 2 Feb 2017

Vol. 937 No. 2

Priority Questions

I ask Members if they will agree to allow Deputy Mattie McGrath's Question No. 4 to be taken first as he has a medical appointment. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Rural Development Plan

Mattie McGrath

Ceist:

4. Deputy Mattie McGrath asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the total funding from his Department to the rural development programme; the key RDP funding priorities for 2017; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3600/17]

The Government has pledged €30 million over the next five years to renew rural towns and villages. How much of that is included in the new rural action plan? Is it old money which is being regurgitated? There are some serious questions as to what exactly was announced and whether it is the same money. One cannot pay lip-service to rural Ireland. It is vital we deal with it in a meaningful and forthright manner.

Ireland's rural development programme for 2014 to 2020 is co-funded by the EU's European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, or EAFRD, and the national Exchequer. The total financial allocation for the period is approximately €4 billion, of which EU support amounts to €2.19 billion with the Exchequer funding the remainder. This significant financial commitment is a key component in our overall strategy to enhance the competitiveness of the agrifood sector, achieve sustainable management of our natural resources and ensure more balanced development in our rural areas. The allocation of Exchequer funding is part of and subject to the annual budgetary process. As part of that process, some €600 million has been allocated to the rural development programme for 2017. I emphasise that within the structures of the annual budgetary and Estimates process, we are fully committed to the allocation of sufficient Exchequer funding to ensure the full draw-down of the EU co-funded amount over the lifetime of the programme.

In terms of 2017 funding priorities, the funding allocation of €600 million provides continued support for the following: our flagship environmental scheme, GLAS, which now numbers over 50,000 farmers, and the associated GLAS traditional farm buildings measure; the Burren programme, a locally-led initiative focused specifically on the conservation of the unique farming landscape that is the Burren and a third tranche of which will open in 2017 to bring the number of farmers taking part to approximately 400; areas of natural constraint, or as the Deputy and I know them better, disadvantaged areas, with some  90,000 farmers receiving support because of the constraints to farming which they face; the highly innovative beef data genomics programme with 24,000 active farmers; the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS, which funds fully completed on-farm capital investments; knowledge transfer groups which cover some 20,000 participants; targeted training for agricultural advisers and farmers who are engaged in the implementation of the rural development plan; the organic farming scheme, which has over 1,800 beneficiaries; legacy schemes from the previous rural development programme, including AEOS and the early retirement from farming scheme; the collaborative farming measure which contributes to the legal, advisory and financial services costs incurred by farmers in drawing up partnership agreements; technical assistance in respect of, among other things, the running of the national rural network, which promotes and monitors the rural development plan; and support for an evaluation of the GLAS scheme.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

As well as continuing to support the schemes that have already been rolled out, two new measures will be introduced and funded in 2017. Tomorrow is the closing date for applications to the new sheep welfare scheme which provides support of €10 per ewe to farmers who undertake actions aimed at improving flock welfare. This scheme has been widely welcomed and fulfils a promise made in A Programme for a Partnership Government. Projects under the European Innovation Partnership, EIP, measure will also commence in 2017. This initiative brings together farmers, researchers, advisers and scientists to look at new and traditional practices, develop ideas and research and co-operate in their own local areas. Closing dates for tenders and proposals, which included the hen harrier and freshwater pearl mussel projects, have now passed but I am pleased to say that a very significant response has been received.

In conclusion, I reiterate that I am fully committed to funding the rural development programme and to ensuring that moneys allocated are spent. In this regard, it is worth noting that the Commission has advised that Ireland well exceeds the EU average in terms of execution of the RDP based on EAFRD spending to 15 October 2016.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle and colleagues for allowing me to go first. The rural development plan must be shown to include completely new funding and not simply represent the rehashing of old budgets. The budget for the 2015 scheme to help rural villages was €6 million a year, but this did nothing to replace the funding lost under the Leader programme which the former Minister, Phil Hogan, destroyed. Information provided to me in reply to a parliamentary question suggests that Leader funding has been cut dramatically for the period 2014 to 2020. There has not been a bob for the last two years. The funding has been cut by 43% which means that towns and villages in rural areas will lose services relating to child care, rural transport and support for start-up businesses. Whereas €376 million was allocated under the programme for the period 2007 to 2013, the new programme to cover the period 2014 to 2020 has an allocation of only €220 million. As such, we are playing with figures. It is a cut of €156 million.

I acknowledge and no one disputes the fact that Leader funding is not at the levels it was. That is a consequence of the financial climate in which the European Union found itself. Consequently, the funding for rural development under Leader was reduced significantly. In response, the Government asked how it could focus its limited resources at the front line in terms of valuable projects in rural areas. Not without some pain, we decided to cut the administrative side, capping the maximum amount to be spent on administration to drive the maximum amount to the front line for projects. Consequently, there has been a reorganisation of Leader groups, sweating down the number of organisations and targeting, as much as possible, the front line. In some areas, local authorities have put additional funding into this.

The issue may need to be revisited in terms of Exchequer funding, but funding is in place. It would be better if the Deputy lit a candle rather than cursed the darkness. A lot of positive things are happening in rural Ireland and the Deputy, who represents a rural constituency, knows that.

I am not quenching any candle, but we need to put on the lights as happened during rural electrification many years ago by the late Canon Hayes. There has been a cut of €156 million to Leader funding. County Tipperary has lost €20 million in Leader funding. What about other spending on rural environments, such as group water schemes? In 2011, the Department funded all local authorities to administer the rural water programme to the tune of €70 million. By 2016 that amount had dropped to €20.9 million, which is an astonishing gap of almost €50 million and the Minister needs to explain that.

During the same period, in Tipperary alone there was a reduction in payments under the rural water programme of €1.95 million in 2011 to €718,000. We have been devastated. The Minister told me to light a candle rather than curse the dark. The Leader programme has been destroyed. It was held up as a model all over Europe, but the former Minister, Phil Hogan, destroyed us, and was supported by the Government. It is only now being restarted. Nothing has happened in the two years that have elapsed. Expressions of interest for the Leader scheme close tomorrow in Tipperary. That is the current situation. Not a shilling has been provided.

I do not think anything I can say will change the Deputy's narrative or demeanour.

Show me the money.

I will. I was in Dún Laoghaire with fisheries local action groups, FLAGs. Deputy McConalogue knows about this because a group in Donegal covers the north west. We allocated funding from the rural development programme of over €12 million to the group. That is a multiple of what it received under the last rural development programme for rural peripheral coastal locations.

I acknowledge that Leader funding has been reduced, but FLAG funding has increased significantly. I appreciate that Deputy McGrath does not have-----

Dublin is not Ireland.

It happened to be launched in Dublin, but the funding is for all the coastal communities from Malin Head to Mizen Head. Tipperary is not included. I did not see the Wild Atlantic way washing the coastline of Tipperary yet, but the funding covers all the coastal communities and is multiples of what it was in previous years.

Areas of Natural Constraint Scheme

Charlie McConalogue

Ceist:

1. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the status of the process of reviewing qualifying areas for the areas of natural constraint scheme; if his Department has completed the mapping exercise; when the maps will be published; the consultation that will be undertaken with farmers on the review; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5064/17]

I ask the Minister for an update on the process of reviewing qualifying areas where the areas of natural constraint, ANC, scheme, whether his Department completed the mapping exercise, when the maps will be published, what consultation will be undertaken with farmers on the review and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Under the rural development regulations, each member state must designate areas eligible for payments under the areas of natural constraints, ANC, scheme.  The ANC scheme replaces the previous disadvantaged areas scheme or less favoured areas scheme. The designation of eligible areas under these schemes to date has been based on a range of socioeconomic factors. From 2018, eligible areas must instead be designated using a list of biophysical criteria. In cases where a member state does not introduce this new system for payment, the old scheme remains in place but payments must be phased out on a digressive basis. From Ireland's point of view, this must be avoided.

Under the new system of designation, which I have said must be introduced in 2018, eligible areas will have to be designated on the basis of biophysical criteria.  The criteria set out in the legislation are: low temperature; dryness; excess soil moisture; limited soil drainage; unfavourable texture and stoniness; shallow rooting depth; poor chemical properties; and steep slopes. A number of the criteria will not have an impact on the new designation in Ireland, while others will have a small impact. In effect, the Irish process will be most impacted by soil drainage and soil moisture excess. The Department has commenced work on this project, and relevant technical experts are currently working on sourcing and analysing the data regarding the new criteria. Department officials have also been in contact with the joint research centre and the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, DG Agri, in the EU Commission in regard to technical issues arising.

Technical work on biophysical criteria in conjunction with the fine tuning and designation of areas of specific constraint processes will produce a new map of areas which are deemed to be eligible. This designation must be signed off by the JRC and DG Agri. The process of moving from the current position with the technical work to the agreement of the designation and of the new scheme with the Commission will be complex and detailed. This analysis will identify areas deemed to be facing natural constraints, which will in parallel be subjected to a refinement process. Once this process is complete, the draft data will provide the basis for the identification of eligible areas for ANC. It is envisaged that stakeholders will be consulted as this process develops. 

I thank the Minister for the response. As I am sure he is well aware, there is much concern in the farming community in regard to this review. The ANC payment can amount to about €4,000 for many farmers across the country. It is particularly important in more disadvantaged areas. I hoped that the Minister would be able to give me some new information regarding the process. We have been aware of what he said. I hope the Minister can clarify the timeline involved. When will the maps be published? Can he give an outline on that today?

Will there be an appeals system for any farmers who might be excluded? Would an appeals system and the consultation to which he referred be completed before he goes to the European Commission for approval?

Will the Minister give a commitment that every possible action will be taken by him and the Department to ensure that those who have payments retain them? It is also important that in the new ANC scheme there is proper funding that reflects the constraints of the land concerned so that farmers on hill land and severely constrained low land receive payments that properly reflect the difficulties involved in farming such areas.

On the latter point on proper funding, it is something that the Government is committed to. In the programme for Government, we have provided for an additional €25 million in ANC payments in 2018. I appreciate that will not go all the way to make up the cuts in disadvantaged areas that were introduced when Fianna Fáil was last in government, but it is a step in the right direction.

The critical timeline is that farmers must have the knowledge of the outcome in order to inform their 2018 basic payment scheme application. I expect it will be several weeks before we have a draft outline of maps which have the biophysical criteria superimposed on a map of Ireland and which show the areas that are included or excluded. It is my ambition, in so far as is possible, to ensure that anybody who currently receives a payment holds on to it.

I cannot definitively say what the biophysical criteria will be. The State is obliged to apply the new criteria. As I said, the timeline for the publication of maps which will inform the process will take several weeks. There will be consultation and an appeals process before there is a final outcome. The critical timeline is that this matter must be completed to allow sufficient time for farmers to submit their basic payment scheme applications in 2018.

I refer to the appeals and consultation process. Will it be completed before the Minister submits maps to the Commission for approval? Can the Minister be crystal clear about that?

The Minister referred to the €25 million allocated for ANCs for next year. Will he ensure that the money is distributed in a way that ensures those farmers who are farming lands with greater constraints, such as hill lands and severely disadvantaged low lands, will be the chief beneficiaries of the funding?

The Minister avoided my question on ensuring that the new scheme properly reflects the constraints on land. The payment currently does not do that. There are very small differences in the payment per hectare between the three tiers. It is crucial that the review properly reflects the difficulty of making a profit on poorer land where it is harder to make a margin, and such farmers must be properly compensated.

I appreciate the Deputy's points. No decisions have been made with regard to how the additional €25 million will be spent in 2018. The funding is additional to current payments. As it said, there will be an appeals system and engagement with stakeholders. That will come within the confines set out by the European Commission in terms of the biophysical criteria. We are several weeks away from having an outline of the outcome of such criteria, which are clearly laid down in EU directives. I outlined them at the start of my response. There will be engagement with stakeholders. It is my ambition and that of my Department, officials and the Minister of State, Deputy Andrew Doyle, to ensure that what we have we hold this regard.

Young Farmers Scheme

Martin Kenny

Ceist:

2. Deputy Martin Kenny asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will allow young farmers who have enrolled but not necessarily completed an approved educational course to avail of payments on the basis that the EU has confirmed that the educational requirement for the young farmers scheme is a rule set at national level. [5063/17]

What is the situation regarding young farmers who have enrolled but not necessarily commenced - the tabled question states completed, which is a mistake - an approved educational course, that is, the FETAC level 6 course, the green cert, that many farmers had to do? They had to have commenced it before May of last year. Many of them were not able to do so because the places were not available and now they find that they are being excluded. What is the Minister's response?

In accordance with EU regulations, members states may define additional eligibility criteria as regards appropriate skills and-or training in respect of the national reserve and young farmers schemes.

Since the introduction of the single payment scheme in 2005 decisions relating to the national reserve, including decisions on objective criteria, are taken in consultation with the direct payments advisory committee, which comprises members of the main farming bodies and farm advisory services. The decision to include agricultural education as an objective criteria for the national reserve and young farmers schemes has been consistently endorsed by this group as it provides assurance that the funding for these schemes is made available to bona fide young and trained farmers. Otherwise, the funding could be allocated to non-farming landowners.

Persons who meet the definition of "young farmer" receive significant benefits in terms of preferential access to the national reserve and also in terms of qualifying for an additional payment under the young farmers scheme. Similarly, the category of "new entrant" provides preferential access to the national reserve for farmers who are establishing their holding for the first time or have established their holding in the previous two years but who cannot avail of the young farmer category due to their age.

To ensure that the benefits of the young farmer and new entrant categories are targeted at those who had a genuine interest in farming as a career, successful applicants are required to have completed a recognised course of education in agriculture giving rise to an award at FETAC level 6 or its equivalent.  This requirement, endorsed by the direct payments advisory committee, receives wide support as it ensures that payments from the national reserve, which are in effect funded by cuts to the entitlements of other farmers, are targeted at bona fide young farmers and new entrants to farming.

The requirement in respect of a FETAC level 6 agricultural educational qualification, when combined with the high demand for places on agricultural courses, gave rise to a significant demand and created a challenge for the agricultural educational sector in 2015. The Department was aware of many prospective applicants who had an interest in pursuing such an agricultural course but may have experienced difficulty in achieving the completed educational qualifications in time to qualify for the 2015 young farmer and national reserve schemes.  To ensure that no such young farmer or new entrant would be excluded from the benefits of these schemes, my Department announced increased flexibility regarding the timelines for achieving the required educational qualifications. It was decided that any person who met the other eligibility criteria for the relevant schemes and who commenced a qualified agricultural course anytime up to and including September 2016 would be accepted under the national reserve and young farmers schemes in 2015.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

Ireland was required to notify the EU Commission of the additional educational eligibility criteria being applied to the national reserve and young farmers schemes, and the increased flexibility in regard to same. The EU Commission subsequently advised Ireland that the flexible arrangements that would allow an applicant to commence their agricultural education after the date of submission of an application under the national reserve and-or young farmers schemes did not fit with the "annual logic of the direct payments" and creates a risk of being contrary to EU regulations governing the operation of the scheme.

To ensure that farmers would not be disadvantaged by this ruling and to comply with the notification from the EU Commission, thus avoiding the risk of a financial correction for Ireland, extensive efforts were put in place by my Department, Teagasc and other agricultural education course providers. This resulted in applicants to the 2015 national reserve and young farmers schemes being provided with a placement on an agricultural education course prior to 31 December 2015. All applicants who commenced their agricultural education course by end-2015 were deemed to have fulfilled the agricultural education requirements for the national reserve and young farmers scheme in 2015. To have enrolled but not commenced an agricultural education course would not be sufficient to comply with the requirement for "appropriate education".

Similarly, for the 2016 young farmers scheme, successful applicants were required to have commenced their agricultural education by the closing date for the scheme. There was no requirement to have the agricultural education course completed in 2016.

The difficulty is that the Minister has previously stated categorically that this issue was an EU one. He said the EU Commission had stated that there was an issue with applicants commencing their agricultural education on a date after that on which they submitted the application for the national reserve and that they were excluded from the scheme if they had not commenced it beforehand. Up to now, the Minister and those in his Department have blamed entirely the EU for the situation, but the EU is not and has never been the problem. The Minister is now admitting that the EU is not behind it but rather the direct payments advisory committee which has agreed it in the past. The truth is that the Department, if it wanted to, could change these rules. It could make this flexible and accessible and offer opportunity to young farmers. If the agriculture sector is going to go anywhere in this country, there must be an opportunity for young farmers to enter it. We all agree that that is the reality. Rather than being angry, most people are disappointed to see that our Department and Government are finding ways to block and stop farmers. That needs to change. We need to find a way to ensure that we create the maximum amount of opportunity for farmers to complete the green cert so that they can move forward.

Thank you, Deputy.

I will make one small point. There are 450 young farmers in the Sligo-Leitrim-Donegal area doing the course at the moment. Some 50% of the tutors employed by Teagasc are now awaiting the renewal of their contracts. They are not sure if that will happen. If it does not happen, where will it all end?

Successive Ministers in previous Administrations have always stipulated the educational qualification of young farmers as a criterion. We have to notify the Commission that it is an additional requirement that we are imposing so that our requirements are compatible with its requirements. The Commission has always approved the requirements that we, exercising a domestic competence, add to its requirements. We cannot do anything that would be incompatible with its regulations. Our requirements in terms of educational attainment are and have always been domestic and have always been endorsed by the advisory group that advises the Minister on these matters. That group comprises the farming organisations, which have always agreed with those requirements. The national reserve is a scarce and valuable resource, but it is not the Department's resource. It is made up of farmers' resources. If we make this entitlement available to other farmers, it comes, by virtue of a linear cut, from everyone else's entitlements. It is a valuable entitlement that is much sought after, so it is only fair that we have objective criteria in terms of active farmers, farm income and educational qualifications to ensure that it is directed at those who are active farmers.

Surely this issue relates to flexibility and opportunity. The opportunity exists to create the flexibility to allow more farmers to enter it. Most farmers from all walks of life will accept that the problem is that we do not have a national reserve. The mechanism to get one, where if a farmer sells his or her entitlements a certain amount is clawed back, means no one is selling them. Instead, they are all going into the rental scheme and are being rented out. That is a problem. The leasing system is not working. The Minister needs to review this situation and come up with a way of ensuring that we can establish a national reserve so that young and new farmers and returned emigrants, etc., are afforded an opportunity. All we are asking for is that this opportunity would be provided. If the current cap on the level of payments people can receive was lowered to, say, €100,000, which would be more than enough for anyone to survive on, it would create an opportunity to put money into the provision of a national reserve for our young farmers.

I must emphasise a point which appears to be lost on the Deputy, whether deliberately or otherwise. These entitlements are a valuable resource that farmers own. This is not Exchequer funding, so if we want to create a national reserve, we have to take it from other farmers. In targeting it at others, we have to ensure that we are targeting it appropriately, that is, at active and trained farmers and not at those who are perhaps just landowners who are not active farmers.

Such as the processors.

These objective criteria have always been approved by the advisory committee, which is made up of farm advisory services and farmers' representatives. It is only right and proper that they would be assured that it is in the long-term interests of the industry if they are giving something from their members. New and young blood, training and educational qualifications are rational criteria on which to make the decision.

Agriculture Schemes

Charlie McConalogue

Ceist:

3. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will consider introducing a €200 annual payment for suckler cows to ensure the sustainability of the national herd; if he will reallocate unspent funds under the rural development programme for this purpose; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5065/17]

Will the Minister consider introducing a €200 annual payment for suckler cows to sustain the national herd and if he will reallocate unspent funds under the rural development programme for this purpose?

The introduction of a specific coupled payment for suckler cows from pillar 1 funding would involve a redistribution of funds allocated to farmers under pillar 1. This would necessitate a linear cut across payment to all basic payment scheme beneficiaries.  The annual cost of such a measure would exceed €200 million.

Ireland has supported the greater market orientation of the CAP over recent reforms, including the decoupling of payments from production. This has provided farmers with a measure of income stability from the basic payments scheme while allowing them to adjust production in response to market demand.

The beef data and genomics programme is the current main support to the suckler sector and provides farmers with some €300 million of funding over the next six  years. The programme builds on the substantial investment in data recording and genomics which has been made in recent years and will continue to drive further developments and improvements in this area.

The programme was agreed with the European Commission as part of Ireland’s rural development plan for 2014 to 2020 alongside a number of other schemes such as areas of natural constraints scheme, GLAS and TAMS, which also benefit suckler farmers. I am conscious of the positive effect that the programme is having on the Irish suckler herd. It will help to improve productivity, profitability and carbon efficiency in the national herd.

The programme provides support to enable suckler farmers to improve efficiency and profitability by improving the overall genetic merit of their beef herd. I firmly believe that the scheme will deliver tangible long-term and cumulative positive effects for both suckler farmers participating in the scheme and for farmers who buy the progeny of suckler cows for further finishing. It is also a significant contributor to Ireland’s well-established reputation as a producer of sustainable, high-quality beef.

On a possible re-opening of the scheme, this is being considered in the context of an assessment of budgetary priorities, the operation of the rural development programme and the potential impact on the scheme and other schemes. It should also be noted that support under rural development programme schemes can only be provided on the basis of costs incurred or income forgone.  Even if it were possible to reallocate resources from within the programme, any increase in the level of payment to participants in the beef data and genomics programme would require the Department to submit an amendment of the rural development programme to the European Commission and an evaluation and approval by the relevant directorates general.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

Even if a revised scheme were approved, any increase in the level of payment would inevitably result in additional actions being required to be carried out by farmers.

The Department will continue to keep expenditure under the rural development programme under review on an ongoing basis. As with all such programmes, there are inevitably issues of timing around the scheduling of payments.  Savings in one year do not necessarily imply savings over the lifetime of the programme.

The provision of support for the suckler sector is critically important.  The range of supports as currently configured represents a balance between direct income support for the sector and rural development measures designed to improve its competitiveness and sustainability. It is entirely appropriate to maintain this balance of developmental and income supports into the future.

Rather than alluding to obstacles or setting out reasons precluding such measures, the Minister should recognise the importance of the beef industry and the pressure it is under. All politicians should work with the farming community to ensure supports are introduced to sustain the national suckler herd. The average income of the 64,000 farmers who produce calves from the suckler herd is €13,000. Unfortunately, they depend entirely on farm payments under the rural development programme and basic payment scheme.

The Minister referred to the beef data and genomics programme. The original commitment was to open the programme to 35,000 farmers but it was closed when the figure reached 23,000. Will the Minister indicate when the scheme will re-open?

Teagasc has indicated it costs between €4 and €4.50 to produce 1 kg of beef, yet farmers are being paid only €3.90 per kilogram. The beef sector is especially vulnerable to Brexit as 50% of the beef produced here is exported to the United Kingdom. It is crucial that the Minister shows a willingness to introduce the supports required to sustain the suckler herd.

The Deputy calls for €200 million to be targeted at the beef sector. While I acknowledge the sector has had a difficult year, the Deputy comfortably avoided the issue of where this funding would be found. He indicated it should be allocated from the rural development programme. It must be borne in mind that we have expenditure lines that extend until the completion of the programme which means all available funding will be drawn down under current schemes. If the Deputy wants me to allocate €200 million from the programme to the beef sector, he must indicate from which scheme I should take this money. Should I take it from the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, or disadvantaged areas scheme? Should I abolish the sheep scheme?

If the Deputy is not suggesting I should allocate €200 million from the rural development programme and Pillar 2, he should state whether I should cut every farm payment under Pillar 1 to secure €200 million in savings to be reallocated to beef farmers. That is the uncomfortable choice that would have to be made.

A third choice, to provide Exchequer funding of €200 million, is a non-runner because of state aid rules. We do not have €200 million to spare in any case. If the Deputy asks for funding of €200 million, he must be specific about where it should come from. There is no plan to leave unspent moneys in the Common Agricultural Policy. While an underspend may arise in a given year, contractual obligations roll over. We are still making payments under the previous rural development programme, for example, under the early retirement and agri-environment options schemes. I have repeatedly made the point, although the Deputy does not appear to accept it, that schemes do not run precisely concurrently with the five year programme but contracts must be honoured over five years.

It is time the Minister stopped bluffing farmers about the Government's approach to the rural development programme. I have stated on several occasions that the Department is significantly underspending the allocation for the rural development programme. As matters stand, the Department is on course to record an underspend of €400 million in GLAS by the end of 2020. That figure is based on information provided by the Minister in a written answer. If he does the maths, he will see it is correct.

I outlined the reasons for re-opening the current beef data and genomics programme. The Minister gave a commitment that the scheme would be open for 35,000 farmers, yet it closed when 23,000 farmers had joined. There has also been a major underspend in that programme, which could be re-opened tomorrow if the Minister was willing to do so.

We have to recognise the pressure the suckler herd is under and ensure we are prepared for the challenge presented by Brexit. We must also ensure export markets, specifically for live exports, are re-opened, and we need to reduce administrative costs, specifically the €8 administrative cost of exporting a calf. It is also crucial that the Department provide additional support in the form of a suckler payment of €200. Otherwise, we will no longer have a suckler herd, on which many farmers depend, in a few years from now.

I note the Deputy failed to address the issue I raised. If he calls for something of this nature, he must be specific. He referred to a figure of €200 million. He must indicate whether this money should be taken from the disadvantaged areas scheme or GLAS.

I was specific. I pointed out the significant underspend in the rural development programme.

The Deputy is well aware that there is no significant underspend in the programme. It is in the same position as all previous rural development programmes, as the Deputy would know if had been around for a little longer.

The European Union has indicated that Ireland's drawdown of rural development programme spending is way ahead of that of all other member states.

The Minister is way behind on his domestic commitments. He has not lived up to his promises and he should acknowledge that.

Please allow the Minister to answer the question.

The Deputy conveniently ignores that in recent days we re-opened GLAS to bring numbers up to more than 50,000. We are committed to examining the beef data and genomics programme to identify any scope we may have in that regard. However, we are constrained by the commitments we have made in other areas. The Deputy is not being honest with those who are listening to this debate.

I have been crystal clear.

Where will he find the funding he seeks? If it is to come from the rural development programme, will it be taken from the disadvantaged areas scheme, the sheep scheme we are introducing or GLAS? He cannot have his cake and eat it.

The Minister must live up to the commitments he and his predecessor made on rural development programme expenditure.

Question No. 4 taken before Question No. 1.

Aquaculture Licence Applications

Eamon Ryan

Ceist:

5. Deputy Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his views on the planned increase in size and number of oyster farms in County Donegal; if an environmental impact assessment has been carried out; the local consultation that has been undertaken; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5066/17]

Speaking at the launch of the national planning framework, the Taoiseach stated that planning would be all about community and bringing the community with us. The Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, Deputy Simon Coveney, promised a new marine strategy. I understand the Minister recently approved applications for a large number of new aquaculture licences in County Donegal of which no one was aware. A single advertisement was placed in a newspaper in August and a notice placed in a Garda station was missed by members of the local community. To take the example of Gweedore Bay, there will be a 700% increase in the area being given over to oyster farming. This is a major issue for the local community. Why did the Minister not seek an environmental impact statement on the proposed development? How can he justify a planning approach in which the local community is not consulted?

All applications for aquaculture licences are considered by my Department in accordance with the provisions of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1997 and, in the case of marine aquaculture, the Foreshore Act 1933. The assessment process takes full account of all national and EU legislative requirements and reflects the full scientific, environmental, legal, public policy and engineering aspects of each application, including the specific production system proposed in each case.

On recent licensing decisions, my Department received a number of new aquaculture applications which relate to the cultivation of pacific oysters on Braade Strand, Gweedore Bay. These applications were considered by my Department in accordance with the applicable legislation which includes a period of statutory and general public consultation.

In the case of shellfish cultivation, an environmental impact statement is required if it is considered that the proposed aquaculture is likely to have significant effects on the environment. To facilitate this, my Department has established a screening group of officials drawn from my Department, the Marine Institute and Bord Iascaigh Mhara to advise on the environmental issues relating to each application by reference to national and EU environmental requirements. This procedure is adhered to fully in respect of all applicable licence applications. It was determined that an environmental impact statement was not required in the case of the applications in question and the reason for my decision on this aspect of the applications is published on my Department’s website.

A public notice in respect of the public consultation phase of the licensing process was placed in the Donegal Democrat and the details of the applications were available for scrutiny by the public at specific Garda stations in accordance with the applicable legislation. Details of applications were also available on my Department’s website during the public consultation phase.

Following consideration of all aspects of the applications by my Department, it was determined that licences should be granted. A public notice of the decisions was published in the Donegal Democrat in December 2016 and the reasons for them are set out on my Department’s website.

The legislation governing aquaculture licensing also provides for an appeals mechanism. Appeals against licence decisions are a matter for the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board, ALAB, which is an independent statutory body. My Department understands that the board is in receipt of a number of appeals in respect of these licence decisions. As appeals are considered by the ALAB as part of a statutory process, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this time.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

My Department is also considering a number of new licence applications and also applications for renewal of existing licences in this area. In some of these cases, the public consultation period is now closed. In all cases, a licence determination will only be made following consideration of the environmental, legal and public policy aspects of each case. As my Department’s examination of these cases is ongoing, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on these cases.

The Deputy may be aware that I have established an independent aquaculture licensing review group which is currently holding a public consultation to invite submissions on matters relevant to the review. This public consultation will remain open until 10 February and I encourage all stakeholders to engage in the process and make submissions to support the group in its work.

I cannot believe the Minister did not ask for an environmental impact statement on this occasion. In my constituency, a pedestrian zone proposed for College Green required an environmental impact statement. The site affected in Gweedore Bay, one of 45 locations where it was decided an environmental impact statement was not necessary, covers 99 acres and is the most sensitive and beautiful place in the world. County Donegal is the coolest county in the world and the airport at Carrickfinn, which was voted one of the most scenic airports in the world, is located directly beside Gweedore Bay.

It is an area of huge cultural importance in terms of the Irish language, fisheries and tourism. This is an incredibly sensitive site and a huge development. It beggars belief. I believe it will run counter to European regulations that an environmental impact statement, EIS, was not considered. Does the Minister have the scope to direct the appeals board that in this instance an EIS be carried out and to commence proper consultation on this matter. As I said, there was no consultation in this case because nobody saw the advertisement. This is not in line with the Taoiseach's statement today in regard to the need for proper community involvement.

If I had acted against the advice of the Marine Institute, my officials and Bord Iascaigh Mhara, Deputy Ryan would be the first to criticise me, and perhaps rightly so. In this instance, as is provided for in the process of assessment of applications, the advice was taken on board. The experts made their recommendations and I abided by them. I have no doubt that had I done otherwise the Deputy would be excoriating me for not having done so. It is important that when we appoint people with expertise and they give advice, we assess that advice and proceed accordingly. I brought my own independent assessment of that to bear and I am satisfied in that regard. There is an appeals process under way and so it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on this matter. I did take the advice of experts on board in this regard.

I also point out that prior to Christmas I appointed a three-person review group to review the aquaculture licensing process because I am convinced that it can be a better and more transparent system. While not wishing to hidebound the people who are charged with that responsibility, they are eminent people who bring a range of expertise to bear on this issue. It is unsatisfactory that some licence applications take several years to determine. We have a land-based planning system in respect of which applications can be determined in several months while licensing applications in this area often take several years. As I said, a review of the system is under way.

I agree with the Minister that the system is deeply flawed and has been so for years. I have seen aquaculture licensing which beggars belief in terms of what was allowed to happen. As the Minister said, the process is not working for anyone. This community is not opposed to the development of oyster farming in the area, rather it is opposed to the scale of the proposed development without any proper consultation. The Minister's job is on occasion to say to the experts that he has a different political perception in terms of community involvement. The massive scale of development in Donegal on this site should have set alarm bells ringing for the Minister, even if the argument of the experts was to the effect that such developments have been always nodded through without an EIS. In this instance, the Minister should have stood up and said that was not in accordance with the new culture of consultation, openness and transparency in terms of protecting the environment. I do not know if the Minister has ever flown into Carrickfinn or spent time there as it is a long way from north-west Cork. There is no other site that is more important culturally, environmentally or otherwise. At the very least, an EIS should be carried out and there should be proper consultation on this matter. Hopefully, as a result of this debate the appeals committee will see sense and start that process so that the community is brought on board and we protect our very precious environment.

It would not be appropriate for me to comment in a way that would be seen to prejudice or influence the independent appeals board and I do not propose to do so. It is not the case that the advices that come to never recommend and EIS. The Deputy is aware of what happened in this instance.

We are talking about a 99 acre site.

In this case, the expertise was availed of and the advertisement process was complied with. Outside of the context of this specific application - as I said, I do not think it is appropriate to draw me into making a judgment on a matter that is before the independent appeals board - I have established a committee to examine the overall issue of licensing. It has carte blanche to examine all of these issues.

Barr
Roinn