Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 9 Mar 2017

Vol. 942 No. 2

Priority Questions

Brexit Issues

Charlie McConalogue

Ceist:

1. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the immediate contingency steps he is taking to safeguard the interests of the Irish agrifood and fishing sectors ahead of the UK’s move to leave the EU; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12573/17]

What are the immediate contingency steps the Minister is taking to safeguard the interests of the Irish agriculture and the agrifood and fishing sectors ahead of the UK’s move to exit the EU, and will he give a full update on his activity in that respect?

I remind the House that I and my Department have been actively engaged in assessing the impact of the Brexit vote on the Irish agrifood sector, consulting appropriate stakeholders and engaging the relevant politicians and institutions. This work is being done in conjunction with the overall Government response being co-ordinated by the Department of the Taoiseach.

I fully recognise the potential difficulties the agrifood sector could face in the event of a hard Brexit. The sector is of critical importance to our economy and its regional spread means it underpins the socioeconomic development in rural areas in particular. The sector employed approximately 173,000 people, that is, 8.6% of total employment in 2016, and the total value of agrifood exports was more than €11 billion.

The highly integrated nature of the agrifood trade between Ireland and the United Kingdom is shown in Central Statistics Office, CSO trade figures, with some €4.8 billion or 39% of exports to the UK last year, and €3.7 billion or 46% of agrifood products imported from the UK.

A number of credible analyses have been conducted on the potential impact on Ireland of a UK exit from the European Union, and all of these show that the result will most likely be unambiguously bad for the Irish agrifood sector. The more immediate impacts relate to the significant drop in the value of sterling against the euro and the effects this is having on industries with significant trading activity in the United Kingdom, especially the mushroom and forest products sectors.

The medium to longer-term impacts will revolve around the potential application of tariffs, the implications of divergence in regulations and standards, border controls with the Great Britain and Northern Ireland and certification, including the related areas of veterinary and animal health certification. There will also be difficult challenges in potential restricted access to fishing grounds and resources.

In response to the challenges being posed by Brexit, I have undertaken a number of important steps within my Department, which include the establishment of a Brexit response committee and a dedicated Brexit unit. I have also created a stakeholder consultative committee, which is complemented by frequent contact with representative organisations and companies on an ongoing basis. In addition, I hosted two all-island civic dialogues for the agrifood sector, to which interested stakeholders from both sides of the Border were invited. The first of these, focusing on the dairy, cattle, sheep, pigs and poultry sectors, took place on 15 December 2016. The second, dealing with the prepared consumer foods, horticulture, forestry and cereals-animal feed sectors, took place on 8 February 2017. A civic dialogue for the seafood sector was held on 1 February 2017. All of these opportunities for consultation allowed me and my Department establish the issues of critical concern to industry stakeholders. I am also in regular communication with Commissioner Hogan and my officials have taken part in meetings with the European Commission and the Barnier task force.

At EU level, I have had regular contact with the Commission and with counterparts in the UK and other member states, including meetings with my Spanish and Maltese colleagues on the margins of last Monday’s Council of Ministers.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

Arrangements are currently being made for further formal bilateral meetings over the coming weeks, involving Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark over St Patrick’s weekend and Poland, Austria and Estonia at the end of the month. In all of these engagements I am making clear our demand for continued unfettered access to the UK market, without tariffs and with minimal additional customs and administrative procedures, as well as keeping the UK market viable for Irish producers by minimising the risk from UK trade agreements with third countries.

On fisheries, Ireland wants to maintain current access to fishing grounds in the UK zone in the Irish Sea, Celtic Sea and north of Donegal and protect our quota share for joint fish stocks.

Last October, as part of budget 2017, I announced measures aimed at alleviating the pressures of income volatility and the potential impact of Brexit. These measures included the introduction of the agri cashflow support loan fund of €150 million, enhanced taxation measures and an additional allocation of €1.6 million in 2016 and €2 million in 2017 to Bord Bia to ensure it is in a position to provide Brexit related supports to affected companies. I also provided for increased funding under the rural development programme and seafood development programme.

I recently awarded in excess of €1.8 million in grants to 19 seafood enterprises under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund Operational Programme for the seafood sector. The aim of these grants is to incentivise seafood innovation and new product development as a means of meeting the Brexit challenge.

The UK’s decision to leave the EU reinforces the need to develop as many outlets for our agrifood exports as possible to minimise our dependence on any one market. This principle of market development is already a key component of Food Wise 2025. We have been very active in recent years in our efforts to diversify markets and to respond to consumer demands in emerging markets.

Inward and outward trade visits will play a key role in our efforts to provide as many markets as possible for Irish agrifood products. Last September, the Minister of State, Deputy Doyle, and I led very successful trade missions to China, Singapore, Vietnam and South Korea and to north Africa in November. I have just returned from leading a trade mission to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates which was very successful and I am currently considering potential further destinations for later in 2017.

I assure the House that the Government remains very focused on supporting the agrifood industry through the challenges ahead. I will continue to consult the industry as the negotiations develop and press Ireland's case for continued free access to the UK market without tariffs and with minimal additional customs and administrative procedures.

I thank the Minister for his response. He has clearly outlined the importance of Brexit for the Irish agrifood sector and the fishing industry. I do not need to reiterate that the agrifood sector is the largest indigenous employer as we face the threat that Brexit poses, in particular to our beef industry, with more than half of beef exports, one third of our dairy exports and exports from other sectors going to the UK. It is important that the Minister and Government are taking every effort and action to prepare for the upcoming negotiations and for Brexit, but unfortunately the Minister's actions in this respect and his preparedness in regard to the Government's activities are not what they need to be.

Fianna Fáil has been watching very closely, and its spokespersons have been monitoring very closely, what the Government has been doing. For example, I have received responses to parliamentary questions showing that Bord Bia, which will play a critical role in identifying new markets, will only get four additional staff next year. The Minister's Brexit unit within the Department has only three staff and the consultative forum he set up has only met twice since it was established in July last year.

If the Minister were to plough a field, he would not sit on a Massey Ferguson 135, capable and all as it might be. He would need the equipment underneath him to deal-----

-----with the challenge in front of him. The Minister is simply-----

Go raibh maith agat, a Theachta.

-----not resourcing his Department and its agencies sufficiently to meet this massive challenge for our country and for the agrifood sector.

Brexit is the challenge of our time and, to be honest, that kind of shrill analysis does no justice to the scale of the challenge we face. I have operated an open door in the context of Brexit and the Deputy has not walked through it with any proposals or submissions on the issue of Brexit. His party spoke at length about the requirement for a Brexit Minister, but it was not until the party entered into the transfer market in early 2017 that it actually got around to appointing a specific spokesperson on Brexit and, to be honest with Deputy McConalogue, we have been particularly underwhelmed by any utterances from that spokesperson, Deputy McConalogue or Fianna Fáil on the matter generally. I extend again an invitation for any submissions or proposals - concrete suggestions.

Regarding the Deputy's critique of Bord Bia, the agency got sanction for 20 staff in 2016, four of whom remain to be appointed. Its resources were increased in the latter half of 2016, in an immediate response to Brexit, by €1.6 million. It received an additional €2 million this year. We do not have endless resources. We need to be extremely clever in using resources.

We have opened new offices in Warsaw and Singapore and have introduced a €150 million loan fund to address-----

-----the currency impact of Brexit immediately. If Deputy McConalogue has a single positive suggestion, we will embrace it. The Brexit unit has had no contact from him.

He did not turn up to Dublin Castle for the civic dialogue-----

-----on the two occasions it was held there, when all representatives of industry were present. I invite him-----

Glaoim ar an Teachta McConalogue.

-----to talk to industry because it knows we have consulted extensively, analysed this issue-----

-----and prepared well.

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Aire.

This is the challenge of our times. It is beyond point-scoring.

Glaoim ar an Teachta McConalogue.

Let us have concrete engagement and suggestions.

There is an adage that attack is the best form of defence. People often revert to this strategy when they have difficult positions to defend. The Minister is seeking positive suggestions. I have pointed out some very serious ones he should adapt, among them proper resourcing of his Department and the agencies that have a key role to play in this regard. He did not address my point about the fact that his Brexit unit only has three staff. There are many reasonable, good-sized farms in this country that have three people working full-time on them. I know many others in the Department will be and are already engaged in this task but only three dedicated people are attached to the Brexit unit the Minister himself set up. Similar British units have hundreds of staff working specifically on this issue. It is symptomatic as well that there is no Brexit Minister to engage with countries on behalf of the Government every single day that is available. For example, last week, the Minister was on an important one-week trade mission to Saudi Arabia and neighbouring countries. While he is engaged in other activities and other Ministers are engaged in their day-to-day business, there is no specific person-----

-----engaging on a bilateral basis with other countries in this regard.

We need to see proper resourcing. I ask once more will the Minister allocate-----

-----additional staff to Bord Bia? Regarding his internal Brexit unit-----

Go raibh maith agat, a Theachta.

-----will he also allocate additional staff-----

-----to properly reflect the massive challenge-----

-----Brexit poses to our agrifood industry?

The agrifood sector exports 90% of what it produces to 180 different countries around the world. It is not that there are three staff in my Brexit unit; in fact, there are 3,000 staff in my Department who underpin Irish agrifood's offering in the global marketplace. That is the team. It is not a team of three people.

How many of them are in the Brexit unit?

It is a team of more than 3,000 people in the Department, each one of whom is critical.

There are three in the Brexit unit.

Deputy McConalogue's comments are so facetious and shrill. They do him no justice.

It is simply underresourcing-----

There are more than 3,000 people in my Department.

Get a briefing over there and see what is happening.

May I ask Deputy McConalogue one other simple question-----

This is crazy.

-----just to nail it, if we can, for once and for all? If we had a Brexit Minister, which Council of Ministers would he attend at a European level? He would not be entitled to attend the Agriculture and Fisheries Council with the other Ministers with responsibility for agriculture. He would stand outside the door like a lost sheep. He would be in-----

He could engage bilaterally.

This is the challenge of our times-----

-----and it requires more serious engagement from the Deputy than this kind of facetious analysis.

The Minister might not like what we are saying-----

We have gone way over time.

Question No. 2 is in the name of Deputy Martin Kenny. I do not have a direction from the Ceann Comhairle as to whether Deputy Ó Caoláin can take it.

It has been so advised.

Areas of Natural Constraint Scheme Review

Martin Kenny

Ceist:

2. Deputy Martin Kenny asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will ensure that in the current review of areas of natural constraint the designation of mountain-type land will be retained; and if he will ensure payments in line with the more severe natural constraints in these areas. [12478/17]

I ask the Minister for Agriculture if he will ensure that in the current review of areas of natural constraint, the designation of mountain-type land will be retained, and if he will ensure payments in line with the more severe natural constraints in these areas. The ANC scheme recognises the constraints under which some farmers operate due to the nature of their land, and the mountain land designation in particular is critically important in the scheme.

Under the rural development regulation, each member state must designate areas eligible for payments under the areas of natural constraint scheme. The ANC scheme replaces the previous disadvantaged areas and less favoured areas schemes. The designation of eligible areas under these schemes to date has been based on a range of socio-economic factors. From 2018, eligible areas must instead be designated using a set list of biophysical criteria. In cases in which 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.

The biophysical criteria set out in the legislation to underpin the new system of designation are: low temperature; dryness; excess soil moisture; limited soil drainage; unfavourable texture and stoniness - I recall, as I am sure does the Deputy, the "stony grey soil of Monaghan" - shallow rooting depth; poor chemical properties and steep slope.

My Department has commenced work on this project, and relevant technical experts are working on sourcing and analysing the data in respect of the new criteria. Department officials have also been in contact with the joint research centre and the Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development in the European Commission regarding technical issues arising.

Over the coming months, this analysis will identify areas deemed to be facing natural constraints, which will in parallel be subject to a refinement process. The categorisation of designations, such as hill or mountain areas, and linked payment levels will be examined based on the outcome of the technical work I have outlined. It is envisaged that stakeholders will be consulted as this process develops.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht an fhreagra sin. This is very important. I take it from what the Minister has said that there is no absolute commitment to retain the designation of mountain-type land within the scheme. This is critically important. Even an examination of how it has fared regarding costings already advised in previous parliamentary questions would show that it makes absolute sense that farmers trying to make a living on mountain-type land need more support than those in less constrained lowland areas. There is much concern about this, not just among the constituents of Deputy Kenny, who tabled this question; it has also been brought to my attention in my constituency, Cavan-Monaghan, particularly in the Cavan end of the constituency, that there is real concern that the review which is under way will involve a flattening of payments. This would spell serious consequences for those who are trying to eke out a living in the most difficult and most challenging of circumstances. Could the Minister offer some reassurance in this regard? It would be much appreciated.

The Deputy will be aware that there is a specific commitment in the programme for Government to restore some of the ANC cuts made in previous years to the tune of €25 million in 2018. This is a welcome step in the right direction.

It does not travel the full road of recovery from the cuts inflicted at that time by a Fianna Fáil-led Government but we are committed to making some redress.

The challenge we face in terms of ANC is to hold what we have. I am committed to that. We have to operate within the biophysical criteria that the Commission has laid down. That analysis is under way. We will have maps and will engage in consultation in due course. It is very early to talk about categorisation within areas designated as suffering from a natural constraint according to these biophysical criteria. My primary objective is to retain classification as we have it. That is not to be underestimated because the criteria have changed from socioeconomic factors to biophysical criteria. Thereafter, we can consider, with the assistance of the €25 million extra that will be available in 2018, classification within areas deemed to have constraint.

While the Minister indicates a commitment to retention, he will appreciate that I am anxious to have a reference specific to mountain-type land and that designation. The Minister has not used that language in his response to me. Could he please for the sake of clarity give me that certainty? That is the primary concern for those who have raise the matter with me. The existing scheme payments do not reflect the actual constraints and have been further diluted by political intervention in recent times. That cannot be ignored. The payment bands are too narrow with only €13 separating the mountain-type land payment of €95.99 and the lowland severely handicapped payment of €82.27. It does not address the real difference that farmers are having to contend with in those different settings and areas of their work.

My understanding is that there will be potential for tiered levels of designation, as is currently the case, within the final designation. The objective now is to secure disadvantaged status against the set of biophysical criteria. Within that status, there will be provision for tiered designation as is currently the case. There are various designations throughout the country. The gap is slightly wider because the islands attract a significantly higher level of payment. That tiered approach will, I hope, remain an integral part of the system. It is far too premature to talk about what areas may now be designated which status. We have to work to the criteria laid down. I envisage a tiered approach at a later stage.

Beef Data and Genomics Programme

Charlie McConalogue

Ceist:

3. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the number of participants enrolled under the beef data genomics programme; if he will immediately reopen the scheme for new participants; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12574/17]

This is to ask the Minister the number of participants enrolled in the beef data and genomics programme and if he will immediately reopen the scheme to new participants and make a statement on the matter.

There are currently just under 24,500 participants in the beef data and genomics programme, BDGP. This scheme builds on the previous nationally funded pilot beef genomics scheme 2014 and can provide a lasting positive impact on the national suckler herd both in terms of genetic gain and environmental sustainability.

The scheme is now firmly established and its benefits are already clearly being seen. Its credibility as a progressive and meaningful scheme for suckler farmers is well known and there are consistent demands for reopening it in respect of new applicants as a result of this. This is being examined in the context of an assessment of budgetary availability, the operation of the rural development programme and the potential impact on this and other schemes.

The calls to reopen the scheme are very much a positive reflection on the experience of those who are currently participating in the scheme. The scheme, combined with other measures introduced by my Department - such as the mart modernisation scheme - has concentrated the minds of suckler farmers on the genetic quality of their herds. When making breeding decisions for their beef herds, commercial farmers are doing so based on both economic and scientific data, which is easily accessible to them when purchasing replacement stock using Eurostar data displayed clearly at mart ringsides. This is an example of two Department schemes complimenting one another in a positive manner. The BDGP is an important factor in driving continued efficiencies in Irish suckler production.

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

I have recently returned from a successful trade mission to the Middle East where I again saw at first hand the high esteem in which Irish beef is held by consumers for its taste, animal welfare standards and environmentally-sound production systems. The reputation of Irish beef as a premium sustainable product was one of the key factors in gaining enhanced market access in Saudi Arabia The BDGP aims to reinforce these vital qualities by further enhancing our production to be at the forefront of Irish and international efforts to tackle climate change. The benefits that this scheme will bring to the Irish suckler herd are cumulative and permanent and are an essential element of the future sustainability of producing beef from our suckler herd.

The Minister's response is not satisfactory, particularly in view of the pressure on the beef industry and our suckler cow herd and the fact that two or three months from now we will be half way through this Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, funding programme. As yet, the beef data and genomics programme is not at the capacity which was outlined. There are only 24,500 farmers in it, although the Government committed to having 35,000. I asked the Minister if he would reopen the programme and ensure it goes up to the capacity in that commitment but unfortunately he is not giving a clear response. It is absolutely crucial that our beef sector is supported. This is a key measure for it. The minimum the Minister needs to do is reopen it immediately. We need increased payments to support our suckler herds and ensure that farmers stay in the programme. For example, replies to parliamentary questions indicate that the Minister could increase the payment under the current programme to €200 on the first 20 cows for a sum of €40 million. We need the Minister to be open to measures like that otherwise our beef sector will go down.

Some farmers want to pay to get out of it.

It is somewhat reassuring to find that a scheme which, in its early days, was the subject of much criticism, not least from those in certain quarters on the other side of the House, is now one that all quarters are anxious to have because they recognise its merit and want to have it extended further.

I am constrained in respect of the beef data and genomics scheme by the funding available under the rural development programme. Of course, that fact is contrary to the myths Deputy McConalogue has been pedalling, in this Chamber and elsewhere, to the effect that there is a crock of gold out there that we just do not want to spend. We are engaged in a very extensive review of expenditure commitments under the rural development programme but there is extremely limited, if any, room available for manoeuvre. I am conducting that review and it will be an interesting challenge for Deputy McConalogue to nail his colours to the mast and say, given what limited space is available, how he would propose to manoeuvre within it. He talks about €200 support for a suckler cow but has never said whether that is to be a top-line cut in basic payments for every farmer, whether it is Pillar 1, Pillar 2 or Exchequer funding. The beef data and genomics programme is funded under the rural development programme. As already stated, I am conducting a review on the overall scope available to see if there is latitude to open the scheme at a later stage.

The Minister unfortunately does not seem open to the idea of properly supporting our suckler and beef herd in the way required to ensure that it is sustained. He should know, as I and many others do, that across the country the suckler herd is depleting and people are considering getting out of it. Teagasc indicates that it is between €4 and €4.50 to break even. Beef is being sold for considerably less than that at present and this is not sustainable.

Will the Minister give a commitment to reopen the beef data genomic programme? The Minister asks me what proposal I would make but he should live up to the commitment he and this Government gave on how the rural development programme would be funded and the extent to which it would be funded.

He committed to provide €52 million per annum for the beef data genomics programme, but we are well under that at the moment. We have been well below our targets in this regard in recent years. A similar situation applies across the rest of the rural development programme. Whether they like it or not, I will continue to hold the Minister and the Minister of State, Deputy Doyle, to account to ensure they spend the money the Government has committed to spend - no more and, in particular, no less. There is capacity for the immediate reopening of this programme and for looking at how the unspent commitment which has been built up so far can be delivered to farmers within the programme period that was promised.

I have previously given a commitment to spend every brown cent that is available from the European Commission under the rural development programme. My predecessors of all hues have been in a position to honour similar commitments.

What about the spending the Government has committed to domestically?

We will not leave a brown cent unspent under the rural development programme. As I said in my initial reply, I am considering the latitude that might be available to reopen the beef data genomics programme. I accept that the beef sector is having a particularly difficult period. That is why we are taking a multifaceted approach that involves live export opportunities, calf export opportunities, new market access and the €150 million loans fund. One of the initiatives we are undertaking involves re-examining the scope for new entrants into the beef data genomics programme within the rural development programme.

I repeat that the Minister needs to live up to his commitment in relation to the beef data genomics programme. I remind him that the Government has committed to provide €52 million per annum. It is simply not spending that money. Will the Minister provide a timeline for when he will be able to indicate whether this programme will reopen? If it is to reopen, it is crucial that the provision to the beef sector of this minimal but necessary support is not delayed any further.

I do not have anything to add to the points I have already made. As I have outlined, I am considering the latitude that might be available under the rural development programme for further expenditure under the beef data genomics programme. Existing commitments mean that the latitude which is available, if any, is not of the scale suggested by Deputy McConalogue. If the Deputy is suggesting that a full commitment of funding for the beef data genomics programme under the rural development programme should be done at the expense of other schemes we are already committed to funding, he needs to be honest with people and say what those schemes are.

The Minister needs to spend the money he promised he would spend on the beef data genomics programme.

Importation of Fertilisers

Michael Collins

Ceist:

4. Deputy Michael Collins asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the steps he has taken at EU level to highlight the problems caused by tariffs and taxes on fertilisers (details supplied); the results he has achieved; and the timeframe for when these issues will be resolved. [12572/17]

I am sure the Minister is aware that nitrogen fertiliser prices in Ireland have increased by up to seven times since last June. As a result, nitrogen prices are approximately €60 per tonne more expensive than they were last summer. Tariffs and taxes on fertiliser in Europe are costing Irish farmers approximately €32 million per annum. This is making Irish commodities uncompetitive against imports from outside the EU. It is also affecting dairy farmers, who had a desperate year last year because of low milk prices, and grain farmers, many of whom are in danger of going out of business. Beef and sheep farmers are badly affected too, as are the 8,000 or so GLAS farmers who are still awaiting their payments from the Department. Is the Minister taking steps at European level to highlight the problems caused by the tariffs and taxes on fertiliser?

I am aware that fertiliser costs comprise a significant area of expenditure on Irish farms. I strongly believe the elimination of fertiliser tariffs and anti-dumping duties could help farmers to reduce their input costs.  According to EUROSTAT, fertiliser is the third most important expenditure item on EU farms, accounting for €19.2 billion of expenditure in 2014. Fertiliser prices have increased significantly in recent years, partly due to the protection provided by the imposition of duties on non-EU imports. Opportunities to manage price risk through hedging mechanisms have also been limited. In February 2016, the International Food and Policy Research Institute published a report on the effects of import duty elimination on competition in the EU fertiliser market. The report concluded that the protection afforded to EU manufacturers by the application of anti-dumping duties and customs tariffs is costing farmers up to €1 billion per annum.

Against this background, I asked the Commission to consider a temporary suspension of customs tariffs and anti-dumping duties on fertilisers in the lead-up to the March 2016 meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council. I actively pursued this issue at Council level throughout 2016 with the Commission and in consultation with Council colleagues.  I raised the issue again at the January 2017 meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council, when I asked the Commission to address the significant overpricing of fertilisers in the EU brought about by the imposition of anti-dumping duties on imports. Commissioner Hogan acknowledged the desirability of bringing about lower prices but indicated that it was proving difficult to achieve, despite considerable efforts on his part with other member states and internally within the Commission.

The 2016 payments under the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, represent the first full year of payments under the scheme.  They are being paid in weekly instalment runs as issues with outstanding GLAS cases are resolved. Further payments are issuing on a weekly basis, with payments valued at over €110 million now having been issued. Over 84% of participants have now been paid.  All GLAS applications must pass regulatory controls and validations, as is the case with all EU co-funded schemes. The outstanding cases are being reviewed on a case-by-case basis to resolve the individual issues in each instance.

While I appreciate some of the steps that have been taken, this issue is unfortunately taking many farmers who are purchasing fertiliser at the moment right over the edge. I also appreciate the steps the Minister has taken to provide cheap finance to farmers, but I am aware that some farmers who are looking for such finance are being turned down by banks. While the provision of €150 million is a start, I have been told it would not solve the problems in the pig sector alone, never mind the problems all across the farming sector. The big uptake of low-interest loans proves that there are huge cashflow problems on many Irish farms. I am aware of the continuous delays in making GLAS payments because many farmers are ringing my office to say they have not been paid. They are probably ringing the Minister's office as well. We have been told that these delays are caused by a technical issue. As Deputy Danny Healy-Rae said at last week's meeting of the Joint Committee on Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs a strike of a hammer against a machine might sort it out. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is failing to sort it out. How can 8,000 farmers still be waiting for the GLAS payments? It is unjust and unfair in times when people are struggling. The cost of fertiliser is taking many farmers over the edge. I ask the Minister to intervene personally. The Minister mentioned Commissioner Hogan, who needs to stand up for Irish farmers in the dairy, beef and grain sectors, who are struggling at present. The grain sector is awaiting compensation that was voted for in this House. That money has to be given to the grain farmers.

As I said in my response, I have raised this issue at European level. I appreciate that the cost of inputs is something we can endeavour to address. I have raised this issue at meetings of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council. Commissioner Moscovici, rather than the Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr. Hogan, is responsible for anti-dumping tariffs because it is a competition issue. Obviously, this issue has been raised by Commissioner Hogan at Commission level. I would be less than honest if I failed to acknowledge that this initiative does not have widespread support. There are member states with significant indigenous fertiliser industries that are protected by these tariffs and anti-dumping levies. That adds a cost to agriculture. Nonetheless, I am personally committed to continuing to raise this matter. I do not think it would be accurate to say this issue lends itself to an easy solution. I should mention in the interests of accuracy that there are not 8,000 GLAS farmers. The number of farmers remaining in the scheme is approximately 5,000. I acknowledge that this is 5,000 too many. We are doing everything we can to address that issue. There is ongoing engagement between my Department and the farm organisations on the grain issue.

The Minister has said that giving farmers relief in respect of the increased cost of fertilisers caused by tariffs "does not have widespread support" in Europe. This is one of many serious issues for Irish agriculture at present. What steps are being taken by the Minister to deal with those issues? It looks to me that something is being done this year, but what has been happening in the last number of years as this problem has been growing? As I have said, many farmers are struggling greatly. I would like the Minister to elaborate on the technical issue that is holding up the making of GLAS payments to 5,000 farmers. I mentioned 8,000 GLAS farmers earlier because that was the figure a number of weeks ago. If someone in Schull has a technical issue, he or she will get a man to sort it out within half an hour. I cannot understand why it seems to take three months for such issues to be sorted out in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Is a belt of a hammer needed to sort it out? It sure as hell is not being sorted out at present.

We had a vote on a compensation programme for grain farmers here. The Minister should remember that his Government did everything possible to stop the grain farmers from getting compensation. The Government lost that vote so why have the farmers not yet got their compensation? The people, through this Dáil, voted against the act of not giving that compensation.

I have not heard from Deputy Collins about the way compensation might be paid. As I stated to others, where there is a way there is a will. We are still searching for the way and we have not heard any detailed proposals from the Deputy on that. We would be very interested to hear about that.

What are the technical issues? They are myriad and are as many as there are applicants awaiting payment, which is the unfortunate reality. We are working through those on a case-by-case basis. Some of them relate to actions associated with individual plots and some concern plots that may have been split. Some of them relate to the correlation between the green, low-carbon agriculture scheme, GLAS, actions and the basic payment application submitted. There are almost as many as there are individual applicants waiting to be paid. The issue is each individual application must be eyeballed and there must be a solution found for each application. If the Deputy has a man in Schull who can sort these out in half an hour, we would be delighted to hear from him or her. There is a very dedicated team in the Department working on this.

I apologise to farmers who are awaiting payment and I appreciate their position. We are working through this as quickly as we can and, as I stated, 84% of farmers have been paid. I understand the position of those still awaiting payment.

Superlevy Fine

Catherine Murphy

Ceist:

5. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the amounts recouped to date from milk producers to reimburse his Department for the levy amount of €77 million paid by his Department to the European Union in November 2015 in payment for exceeding milk quotas; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12571/17]

This question relates to payments made to the European Union for non-compliance in respect of exceeding the national milk quota. I understand approximately half the amount has been recouped and there is a time element involved in recouping it this year.

When the EU milk quota was abolished in April 2015, some 6,400 Irish dairy farmers had accrued a superlevy liability of €71 million for exceeding their milk quota. To assist with the large superlevy bill across the EU, the European Commission introduced an optional scheme for member states whereby a milk quota levy incurred by producers in the final quota year could be paid in equal instalments over three years from 2015 to 2017, inclusive, without interest. This repayment would take the form of a 33% lump sum in 2015 and the balance to be spread over equal instalments in 2016 and 2017. Ireland was one of seven member states which opted to introduce this scheme. Ireland chose to implement the scheme so as to assist farmers through a period of market volatility.

The Department paid the full superlevy bill of €71 million to the European Union in November 2015, made up of €35.4 million collected from farmers that year and €35.6 million from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine funds. This latter figure was required to be paid back by farmers under the instalment scheme as a condition of the governing regulations. Approximately 2,700 producers opted to pay their full levy in 2015, while the remaining 3,700 opted to join the instalment scheme. Repayments are therefore as follows: €17.8 million was paid in five equal instalments from May to September 2016 and €17.8 million is to be paid in five equal instalments from May to September 2017.

The first instalments were due in May 2016 and were repaid in each month up to September. These months were chosen to coincide with peak production periods for farmers. End-of-year results indicate over 99.7% of the expected payment was received. The outstanding debt for 2016 is now down to three participants owing €12,700. My Department is in ongoing contact with these farmers to arrange their repayment as required under the relevant regulations. To date, €53.2 million of the €71 million in respect of this scheme has been returned to the Exchequer, with the 2017 instalment balance making up the remaining liability. It is expected that by the end of this year, the entire superlevy will have been repaid in full by farmers.

Is there an issue in the repayment by instalments being factored into the Department budget for this year? Is the money required for other schemes? Is it an issue or is the Minister satisfied that this is progressing in the way he expected? I presume from the Minister's reply that the sharp fall in the global price of milk had a bearing on how this was handled and that is why people were given the option of an instalment plan. Was it predicted in advance of the levy being dispensed with?

The rationale for the scheme was twofold. There was a very significant superlevy bill not just in Ireland but across the European Union and a number of member states decided to avail of the latitude offered by the Commission in paying the superlevy over a period rather than up-front. It was also a reflection that at the time, milk prices began to go south, which put additional repayment capacity difficulties on farmers. The staggered approach was welcomed by farmers. I accept that welcome as it was, in a very difficult year in 2016, it put farmers to the pin of their collar. It is interesting to note that 99.7% of the liabilities due have been paid in the year and the total bad debts are from three farmers, totalling €12,700. In light of the overall cost, it is not a bad level of compliance in what was a particularly difficult 2016. Global dairy markets have recovered somewhat and that graph is going in a different direction, fortunately, as prices are on the up. That will give farmers some leeway and breathing space in terms of commitments. The Department is budgeting on the liability being met in full.

Food Exports to China

Thomas Pringle

Ceist:

6. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will address the urgent need to resolve the issue of China's ban on Irish live brown crab exports; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12197/17]

This question relates to the Chinese ban on the import of Irish live brown crab, which has been ongoing for 16 months, with seemingly very little action being taken to deal with it.

On 29 October 2015, the Chinese food import authorities wrote to the Irish Embassy in Beijing expressing concern about the levels of the heavy metal cadmium in live crabs coming from Ireland, which the Chinese authorities determined exceeded Chinese limits. The Chinese authorities requested that Ireland ensure only crabs which meet the Chinese standards for cadmium be permitted for export. European legislation sets a limit of 0.5 milligrams per kilogram for white muscle meat from the limbs only. The Chinese authorities are currently applying this limit to all crabmeat. I understand that crabs take in cadmium, which is a naturally occurring element, from the environment and it builds up in the brown meat of the crab to much higher levels than the white meat. I am advised by the Marine Institute that Irish waters have very low cadmium levels. It is important to bear in mind that heavy metals occur naturally at low levels in the marine environment.

In view of the Chinese request to meet this Chinese standard for live crabs, the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, Ireland's competent authority for seafood safety, certification and sea-fisheries conservation, notified Irish crab exporters of the new monitoring requirements and the difficulties this would pose for the authority in providing health certificates for live Irish crabs intended for export to China. Ultimately, the implementation of food regulations for imports into China is a matter for the Chinese authorities. Ireland applies the stringent European standards and follows procedures, which include monitoring the safety of Irish seafood, so consumers can continue to have high confidence in the quality of Irish seafood.

As part of efforts to support the trade of compliant safe seafood, a memorandum of understanding is in place with the Chinese import authorities that allows for technical dialogue. The Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority continues to work with Chinese import control officials on this market access issue, supported by officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. A visit to Irish crab production and State laboratory facilities by Chinese import control officials was hosted in May 2016. Following this, there has been continuing communication between the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority and Chinese officials on this issue. The matter was further discussed between Irish and Chinese experts in the course of Ireland’s trade mission to China in September 2016. A further visit by Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority experts to China is being arranged for the near future. The Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, my Department and the Department of Foreign affairs and Trade are continuing strenuous efforts to secure agreement with Chinese officials for resumption of this trade at the earliest possible date.

The Minister's response gets to the nub of the problem. This has been left to be dealt with at official level with the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority and the Chinese officials. France was subject to the same ban, which lasted for eight months.

The UK was subject to the same ban, which lasted 12 months. Here we are, 16 months down the road and we still have no access, whereas France and the UK have had access restored. The only explanation one can arrive at is that there was intervention at a political level in France in the UK that allowed exports to resume. It is hard to escape the thought that if this were the pork industry, people would be going over non-stop to try to have it reinstated. However, nothing is happening regarding the live brown crab. To add insult to injury, Irish live brown crab is being exported to France, repackaged and exported to China. How does it make sense? The only explanation can be that there is no involvement at a political or diplomatic level to resolve the issue and that it is being left to the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority.

That is not the case. On a delegation to China, I raised the issue, supported by the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, with the Chinese authorities. While the Chinese market is very important for us, so is the certification we give, not just to seafood but to all our other food exports. I appreciate the Deputy's point, and the fact the meat is being exported, repackaged and sold on to China is interesting. Our certification process is critical to the offering we make all over the world in respect of all our foodstuffs. We do not want to diminish it in any way and we are not prepared to sign something we cannot stand over regarding the technical requirements the Chinese are imposing on us. We are engaging at a very senior level politically, diplomatically and technically in my Department with the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority and the Marine Institute in an effort to ensure we reopen the market, which is particularly important. It is not for want of engagement at any level, and I hope we can make progress on the matter.

It is hard to escape the fact that the French overcame the issue in eight months and the English in 12 months, whereas 16 months later we are still here. I am sure the French are providing certification which meets the standards the Chinese can accept. It seems to me that there is no action. Maybe we should ask the French for advice on how they overcame the issue. A substantial market is potentially available. In 2015, one supplier sent 225 tonnes to China at a value of €1.8 million. We could potentially have had an export market of more than €5 million this year if this had not been in place. Surely the French are very proud of their standards of certification in their food industry. I am sure the English are too. Here we are, it has been almost double the time and we have no access.

I understand the Deputy's point. At face value, it appears illogical that our crab is purchased by other EU nations and resold. The integrity of our certification process is critical, not just to crab meat to China but to every other product we certify for markets all over the world. If we in any way diminish the standing of the certification process, there would be a domino effect. My officials are right to insist they stand over the certification process. Cadmium is a naturally occurring metal which is as prevalent in our crab meat as it is in French or UK crab. However, our certification process has an integrity on which we are not prepared to compromise. We are engaged in very complex, technical, scientific negotiations with the equivalent authorities in China on the matter. Last September I was in the room when the matter was raised with the Chinese authorities in the presence of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. While I cannot definitively say when the matter will be resolved, it will not be for want of commitment at all those levels to bring the matter to a successful conclusion.

Horse Racing Industry

Clare Daly

Ceist:

7. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the steps he will take to amend the foal levy scheme to make it more equitable. [12345/17]

The question relates to the Minister's plans, if any, to amend the controversial foal levy. During the week, the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine heard from Mr. Brian Kavanagh, CEO of Horse Racing Ireland, HRI. Every person, Deputies from all parties and none, expressed concerns at the foal levy. It is the subject of court proceedings. Maybe a bit of leadership from the Minister's Department in bringing about change might be a better way of resolving what is an issue for people throughout the country.

HRI is a commercial State body established under the Horse and Greyhound Racing Act 2001 and is responsible for the overall administration, promotion and development of the horse racing industry. The current foal levy scheme, which was introduced in 2000 on a statutory basis, applies to all thoroughbred foals registered in Ireland. The foal levy is calculated with reference to SI 735 of 2011, which is the governing legislation.

HRI's foal levy committee reviews the rates, bands and structures of the levy annually and has also considered potential alternative methodologies to calculate the levy due. It has concluded that the current banded or tiered approach represents the most equitable and appropriate way of securing the vital funds needed for the breeding sector. The majority of foals registered fall into the two lower bands of €35 and €50 and there is a very high compliance rate of 98.3%.

Some of these issues were discussed at the committee. The high compliance rate is linked not to the fact that people believe the system is fair but that they cannot register their foals with Weatherbys unless they pay the foal levy and this is the point that is made to them. At the heart of the issue is the bizarre scenario whereby people pay the stud fee based not on the actual price they pay but on the advertised price. This does not exist anywhere else. People find it incredibly inequitable. They are not saying they do not want to pay anything. They have done calculations which show the small owners and breeders are being most hard done by.

When we raised it at the committee meeting, we were told it would be an administrative nightmare to change it. That is utterly ridiculous. Weatherbys administer it. It already receives documentation from everybody who wants to register their foals. Why not add a document which gives the stallion fee and shows the amount of foal levy paid? It is perfectly simple. Every other business can do it. The excuses being put out are not valid. People want to know what initiative the Minister can take to break the logjam.

As the Deputy said, the matter is still before the courts. Nonetheless, I do not want to hide behind that in so far as possible. Approximately 12,000 thoroughbred foals are born every year. The alternative view suggests that, rather than the nominated fee, HRI should be able to operate on the basis of the actual fee. It would be difficult administratively. For example, what is the fee in the unusual circumstance in which the stallion and mare are owned by the same person? What is the cover fee or registration fee in that situation? There are so many different permutations in the context where no fee is paid.

The funding secured from it is put to very good purposes. It funds the Irish Equine Centre, the Irish Thoroughbred Marketing Service and the Irish Thoroughbred Breeders Association. There is a high compliance rate. In recent years, the HRI foal levy committee has introduced a broader banded system in order that the majority of foals born are in the lower fee category. There has been progress. I do not like to see such matters before the courts. I wish they could be resolved. The high level of compliance suggests the vast majority of people find the situation reasonably satisfactory, notwithstanding that nobody likes to pay anything.

The Minister, and Deputies from all parties and none, know well that is not the viewpoint on the ground. It is not good enough that the Minister abdicates responsibility to the HRI foals subcommittee or to the courts. The judge who is considering the matter is considering the fact it is a matter of such public importance that he is considering referring a case stated to the Supreme Court.

Given that we know there is disquiet across the board - all the Fine Gael Deputies here will confirm that - and in view of the fact that there is a problem at which the courts are looking, would the Minister be prepared to sit down with interested parties and discuss a fairer alternative to this situation? Is the Minister aware of the submission of any falsified documents on these matters with regard to prices? The way it is done now is very convoluted but the solution is quite simple. An invoice that shows the fee actually paid can be used to determine the levy. I do not know how in God's name that is an administrative nightmare. Shopkeepers and everybody else seem to be able to manage that. Limited and all as it is, I believe Horse Racing Ireland could manage that also.

This entire process was reviewed in 2011. The outcome was that the number of bands increased from six to 11. The majority of registrations are now costing between €35 and €50. In the context of a thoroughbred foal, I do not believe that is an exorbitant amount. As the Deputy said, the matter is before the courts and it would be preferable if it was possible for both sides to find some middle ground. There is little point in having a statutory board with responsibility in respect of this area if I was then to delve into the middle of the situation to take on the duties the board is statutorily obliged to carry out. There is a sub-committee of that board and it has dealt with and reviewed the matter. I do not see any immediate role for me, as Minister, to intervene in that matter.

They say they are only implementing the statute that is there, so they are only putting it back onto the Minister.

It is open to the board, as it did in 2011, to review the matter further.

Or a recommendation could be made to have one.

I am not aware of any falsification of documentation. If Deputy Clare Daly is aware of falsification, however, she should bring the matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.

Coillte Teoranta Activities

Niamh Smyth

Ceist:

8. Deputy Niamh Smyth asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the proposed future plans of Coillte for a forest park at a location (details supplied); if there have been any offers made in the past five years to buy the park; if so, the details of those proposals; if Coillte is planning any major investment at this site; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12191/17]

I wish to ask the Minister if he has any proposed future plans for Coillte for the Killykeen Forest Park holiday village and if any offers have been made over the past five years to buy the facility. Perhaps the Minister could outline these proposals and if Coillte is planning any major investment at the site.

Coillte was established as a private commercial company under the Forestry Act 1988 and day-to-day operational matters, such as the management of their forest estate and land transactions, are the responsibility of the company.

Killykeen Forest Park is located on the shores of Lough Oughter and consists of approximately 240 ha. Coillte advises that the company has no major investment plans for Killykeen Forest Park but that it is currently working with Cavan County Council to examine the way in which public recreation facilities at the park may be improved and if this may involve engaging a service provider, for example, in bicycle hire, canoe hire, etc. Coillte advises that the company is also developing a longer term management plan for the recreation facilities at this park.

Killykeen holiday village is located in Killykeen Forest Park.  The holiday village, which has 28 log cabins for guests, is located on nearly 74 acres with 1.7 km of shoreline to Lough Oughter and forms part of the larger 240 ha forest park. It was placed on the market in June 2016 by Coillte.

In the context of the sale of the holiday village within Killykeen Forest Park, I am advised by Coillte that it remains on the market. As I have previously indicated, Coillte was established as a private commercial company. The sale of the holiday village is, therefore, an operational matter for Coillte and details of any offers made are confidential.

As part of its management of some 442,000 ha of the national forest estate, I note that Coillte has more than 3,000 km of trails, 260 recreation sites and 12 forest parks across the State. Coillte forests provide a range of recreational opportunities for the general public, continuing a long tradition of open access to State-owned lands. I understand that the general public greatly values these forest recreational facilities and I am pleased to note that Coillte is actively engaging with Cavan County Council with a view to improving the public recreation facilities in Killykeen Forest Park in the short-term. I understand that there are currently four signposted walks and a family cycle trail in the forest park. I am also conscious that such recreational facilities are also very valuable resources as tourism attractions in the various regions. I apologise for going over time.

I am sure you are.

I have some facilities of this type in my constituency.

The Minister outlined some of the wonderful Coillte owned amenities across Cavan and Monaghan. When I say this, I am thinking of the Castle Lake and Forest in Bailieborough where local community groups, such as the Bailieborough Development Association and the Bailieborough Castle Lake Committee, today planted 2,000 hardwood trees to commemorate victims of the Troubles. Other amenities include: Dún na Rí Forest Park, located north of Kingscourt; Dartrey Forest Park, which straddles the border between Cavan and Monaghan; the Cavan Burren and the Marble Arch Caves Global Geopark, located 4 km south of the villages in west Cavan and Belcoo in County Fermanagh; and the Killykeen Forest Park. The Minister has outlined Killykeen's fantastic amenities and at 240 ha it is by no means a small project or forest park to have in our county. It has the potential to be a wonderful facility.

My point is that these are hugely important attractions in counties Cavan and Monaghan but they need investment. If the Minister of State has been to Killykeen Forest Park holiday village, then he would know it has had a huge deficit of investment. As a result, we are losing one of the most important tourist attractions in the county, and we do not have many of them.

As a matter of interest, I tried to book in to Killykeen in 1988 and I could not do so.

The Minister of State would have no problem getting in to stay there now.

I stayed in Kilcorby instead, which is privately owned and in Deputy Niamh Smyth's constituency and which benefited from moneys from the International Fund for Ireland relating to the Shannon-Erne Waterway. I know Killykeen and was at a barbecue there with my first cousin in 1988.

The Minister of State should come to visit us again.

I would be delighted to do so. As the Deputy is aware, the Killykeen Forest Park holiday village and the forestry school in Avondale were established to showcase the potential for Irish timber but, like a lot of developments of that era, they have aged and dated. I understand it was originally put on the market in 2006.

There was no interest and no sale in 2006. In 2009, it appeared there would be a sale but it failed to be finalised so the holiday village has been for sale since. I understand there has been some pretty intensive and active engagement but it has not gone the full way yet. In fairness to Coillte, I would not ask for, nor would I expect it to tell me, the details of the levels of bids. The holiday village complex is, however, expected to realise a reasonable amount of money, which would be used to develop part of the overall national forest park strategy. Coillte had planned to launch the national forest recreation policy very shortly but it has had to be deferred to another date. This is a new development Coillte will be rolling out.

I thank the Minister of State. We must maximise the potential of the natural amenities and attractions that are on our doorstep. The Minister of State alluded to it and we can see what is happening in Ballymahon. The multi-million euro investment by Center Parcs there will create local employment and it has huge potential for counties such as Cavan and Monaghan. That template could be replicated across the State.

I have had the experience of working with local groups and it is important to acknowledge these groups. There are a number of groups in each area of the forest parks that I have cited. The Grand Gardens, for example, is a community group initiative at Kingscourt, County Cavan. The group had a project idea, had done some work with Coillte to develop one of the historical walled gardens and had completed some preparatory work and a lot of ground work to develop the garden as a local amenity in what is already a fabulous park. When it came to further engagement, however, the group could, unfortunately, only get so far with Coillte. When it came to long-term leases, it seemed to meet a brick wall. Coillte must become open to the idea of working with community groups who have so much to offer around voluntary support and work in community areas. The people in the community groups are from the areas and have a natural passion for the amenities and want to see them developed. We should tap into that. It is a missed opportunity for Coillte to not engage with community groups of that sort.

First, I want to correct the record. I visited Killykeen holiday village in 1998. I am far too young to have had a family wanting to book in to Killykeen in 1988.

Second, I agree with what has been said. Coillte has almost 500,000 hectares of land. It is open for forest policy and it has great potential, so we need to engage on that. I am encouraged by the direction Coillte is taking. It is certainly true to say that it lost direction, both in its forest management and its recreation role, for various reasons. The initiative at Killykeen holiday village was initially-----

It was ahead of its time.

It was ahead of its time but time has now caught up with it and it needs significant investment. Coillte also needs strategic investors. The Center Parcs model to which the Deputy referred is very useful. It is, as the Deputy knows, Coillte land on which development is taking place at present.

Bring it to Cavan.

Agriculture Scheme Payments

James Browne

Ceist:

9. Deputy James Browne asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the total number of persons in County Wexford that have not received 85% of their total 2016 payment under GLAS 1, GLAS 2 and AEOS; the reason for this delay; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12372/17]

Under the EU regulations governing the green, low-carbon, agri-environment scheme, GLAS, and the agri-environment options scheme, AEOS, a comprehensive administrative check, including cross-checks with the land parcel identification system, must be completed before any payment can issue.  My Department, as the accredited paying agency, must ensure that, before payment issues, everything in an application that can be checked is checked as required under the regulations. Therefore, payments can only issue where all the required validation checks have been successfully passed.

In regard to 2016 payments, under AEOS, the previous agri-environment scheme, just over 8,600 AEOS participants were due a payment. AEOS 2 participants completed their five-year contracts on 31 December 2016. Under the EU regulations governing this scheme and all other area-based payment schemes, a full check, including cross-checks with the land parcel identification system, must take place before the final payment can issue. As all AEOS 2 participants will be receiving their final payments under the scheme, re-checks on payments made for all scheme years must be completed before final payment can be processed. This is the same procedure as applied to AEOS 1 participants finishing in that scheme.

To date, AEOS 2016 payments amounting to over €22 million have issued. The remaining cases are currently being checked and payments will continue to issue on an ongoing weekly basis as these cases are cleared. A total of 84 farmers in County Wexford were due a 2016 payment in AEOS, of whom 51 have been paid and 33 are awaiting payment.

The 2016 payments represent the first full year of payment under GLAS. At the end of December 2016 there were approximately 37,500 active participants in the GLAS scheme, of which 27,400, or over 71%, received payments valued at over €97 million, representing 85% of their 2016 payment. As issues with outstanding GLAS cases are resolved, they are being paid in weekly payment runs. Further payments are issuing on a weekly basis, with payments valued at over €110 million now issued and over 84% of participants now paid. Further payments are issuing on a weekly basis.

Some 778 farmers in County Wexford are active in GLAS 1 and a further 271 are active in GLAS 2, of which 627 in GLAS 1 and 227 in GLAS 2 have successfully completed the GLAS prepayment checks in respect of the 2016 scheme year and a first payment instalment of 85% has issued. The current position is that 151 farmers in GLAS 1 and 44 farmers in GLAS 2 have yet to receive their payment and their applications continue to be processed.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

Outstanding payments under both GLAS 1 and GLAS 2 are largely delayed due to declaration of incompatible parcel usage on the basic payment scheme application for a chosen GLAS action; changes in parcel boundaries on which a GLAS action is chosen, including splitting or merging of parcels; an applicant no longer claiming a parcel on their 2016 basic payment scheme; incomplete documentation such as incorrect information on low-emission slurry declaration; incomplete interim commonage management plans; and incompatible data and parcel history on Department databases.

Payments under the scheme will continue to issue on an ongoing basis as issues are resolved and cases are cleared for payment.

Obviously, this question concerns delays in payments under the agri-environment schemes, GLAS and AEOS. There is mounting anger over the delay in these payments and we saw protests recently outside Johnstown Castle in County Wexford. These are farming families whose patience is running out at this stage. They were expecting these payments before Christmas and they have not yet received them, and families are suffering as a result. We need to see an element of urgency on this issue in order to get these payments out. While I appreciate there have been a number of issues, most should have been anticipated.

I previously stated on the record of the House that I very much regret the delay in these payments. Whether it is in Wexford, Meath or any other part of the country, I do not find it satisfactory. However, I would say the officials in this area of my Department, both IT and administrative, are working without constraint in terms of overtime and so on to try to resolve the matter.

By way of information, approximately 2,000 cases are failing a prepayment validation check for one or more of the claimed GLAS actions. A further 2,500 cases have issues with the consistency of the parcel data on the Department's databases. The remaining cases relate to cases that have outstanding errors with the annual basic payment scheme application. In total, there are approximately 5,000 left to pay. While we cannot quantify it yet, it is anticipated that a sizeable number of those will not qualify because they never activated their applications after submitting them. However, we are working to try to ensure that those in County Wexford and elsewhere get payment. I will not rest until all of those are paid.

I appreciate that it is not in compliance with the farmers charter and that is something we are not happy about. Although this is cold comfort to anybody waiting, we have rolled out more schemes under the rural development programme than any other EU member state and our drawdown of funds is well ahead of any other member state. Nonetheless, I accept this is unsatisfactory.

The Minister is correct it is not in line with the farmers charter. At a time when farmers are facing Brexit threats, sterling fluctuations, income uncertainty and price volatility, the last thing they need is a further delay in payment. Will the Minister set out whether there is a definitive timeframe for addressing the delays in GLAS and AEOS payments? There is a concern there is no sense of urgency on this issue, given some families are waiting over five months for payments. The Department had two years of preparation in order to get this right and none of the difficulties being experienced were unexpected. Some 194 families in GLAS and 33 families in AEOS are awaiting payments, which is almost 40% of the numbers. Each one of those numbers represents a family. They need those payments and they need to know when they are going to get them.

I do not want to give a time or date I cannot stand over. All I can do is assure the Deputy that I and my Department recognise the urgency of the situation and are working as hard as possible to try to resolve the issue.

Question No. 10 replied to with Written Answers.

Laboratory Facilities

Eamon Scanlon

Ceist:

11. Deputy Eamon Scanlon asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will ensure that the Sligo regional veterinary laboratory will be kept open; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12352/17]

Deputy Eamon Scanlon has assigned his question to Deputy Charlie McConalogue.

The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine laboratories are an integral part of the Department, providing critical scientific evidence and expertise in animal health, food safety and plant sciences, which allows the Department to function effectively as a regulator, to deal with new and emerging risks and to rapidly respond to disease outbreaks and food safety incidents. The laboratories also provide valued services and advisory support to the farming community, the food industry and wider society.

The ambitious targets of the agrifood industry for growth and development over the next decade, as set out in Food Wise 2025, must be underpinned by robust systems which protect and enhance our reputation as a producer of safe and wholesome food. One of the ways in which we must respond to this challenge is by developing a long-term strategy for the laboratories, building on existing capability and expertise in animal health, food safety and plant sciences, and ensuring we achieve both operational and scientific excellence.

This was the primary reason for tasking a working group, led by Professor Alan Reilly, to undertake a comprehensive review of the Department’s laboratories. This review has considered both the central laboratory complex at Backweston and the eight regional laboratories located at Athlone, Cork, Kilkenny, Limerick and Sligo.  The group has presented a report to the Department which makes recommendations on the following: oversight and co-ordination of the laboratories activities; reorganisation of divisions and support functions within the central laboratory complex; options for the future development of the regional laboratories with a view to improving disease investigative and surveillance capability, but with the overriding imperative of maintaining and enhancing services to farmers; and human resources management within the laboratories with a focus on grading structures, career development opportunities and workforce planning.

My Department is currently consulting with all relevant stakeholders. A decision on any of these recommendations will await the outcome of this consultative process. In the case of the regional veterinary laboratories, any decision will also be informed by a cost-benefit analysis of the various options that have been proposed for their future development.

I thank the Minister for his response. It is absolutely correct that we should look at all times at how a service is provided. Particularly regarding veterinary and scientific services to the agricultural community, we must ensure that those involved have the resources, facilities and back-up necessary to be able to perform that function to the highest possible standard. The concern with regard to the ongoing review has been particularly related to the regional veterinary laboratory network. There are proposals and options in the working group report put forward which involve a closure of some of those regional veterinary laboratories. It involves the closure of Sligo, for example, which is referred to in my question, and there is also grave concern for Limerick and Kilkenny.

The Minister will know, from feedback he received from them, how important this regional veterinary laboratory network is to farmers in the regions. For example, with regard to the closure of Sligo, for farmers in the part of the world I come from in north Donegal, the nearest laboratory would be Athlone. It is simply unacceptable that farmers in times of distress who require autopsy services for animals would have to avail of a service that is that far away. The regional veterinary network is absolutely essential. In his final comments, the Minister - apart from noting the resources and the scientific facilities and equipment that will be available - indicated that the regional veterinary laboratory will be looked at in the context of a cost-benefit analysis. There is never any doubt that one office in a central location with all of the staff in it may, from a cost-benefit point of view, be a cheaper way of providing services. However, the key point is that the regional veterinary laboratory network is critical. The service is very important. Therefore, it is absolutely crucial that the Minister, the Department and the review group keep that in mind. Certainly, from my party's perspective, it is crucial that that network is protected and given the resources and facilities necessary to provide the service it is expected to provide.

I hear loud and clear the geographical message. I appreciate the importance of a geographical spread. The one assurance I have given is that there will be no diminution of service to the farming community in respect of this. It preceded my appointment, but it was right and proper that Professor O'Reilly was given carte blanche to look at the current service, critique it and make a series of recommendations. He is an internationally-renowned scientist. He has done some sterling service both in this country and abroad. I felt it was appropriate thereafter to put that out into consultation with the staff. They are the people whose role is critical to underpinning the industry and the manner in which we are able to travel the globe and stand over the product that we have. I salute all of the staff that are employed across the regional laboratories and at Backweston. That consultation process is ongoing. In a way, it is unfortunate that there has been an element of scaremongering by farm organisations and others. No decisions whatsoever have been made about the future structures. I made that point to staff to whom I have spoken. It is right and proper that they engage and put their best foot forward in respect of the service that is there now. It is a critical service for the industry and I acknowledge what it has done, but I equally think that it was only right and proper that Professor O'Reilly would have been given the broadest possible scope to critique the service and make recommendations for the future. Those recommendations are the subject of public consultation.

I think it is a bit simplistic and dismissive of the Minister to talk about the farming community scaremongering or about people being concerned about this. Options have been put forward. They were pulled out of thin air. One of the options for consideration would involve the closure of some of these veterinary laboratories. Another is that they would all be amalgamated into one centre. I do not think it is unfair to expect that the farmers would become concerned about that being on the table for consideration and would make their views known on that basis. It is right that they should do so. People always become concerned when they hear commentary regarding cost-benefit analysis. Too often, what that means is that all of the emphasis is on the cost and not enough is on the benefit. What is key is that there is recognition in this review of the importance and benefit of the regional veterinary laboratories to the regions and to farmers who live there and that they remain part of the overall service. That service is provided to a great standard across all offices and there must be investment in order to ensure that this remains the case.

I think it is unfortunate to say that proposals were pulled out of thin air. To make that statement in respect of a report done by Professor O'Reilly, who has international eminence in this area, is unfortunate.

I said that they were not pulled out of thin air.

That is exactly what the Deputy said. He said that proposals were pulled out of thin air.

They were not pulled out of thin air. I said that they actually came from a report.

No decisions have been made and there is no Department document that talks about closing anything. There is a report that was compiled by an eminent person who has internationally-recognised expertise in this area. That report is now the subject of consultation with the staff. That is where matters stand. There is no recommendation to close any regional laboratory service. It is wrong to create that impression. The people who work in those laboratories have been done a disservice by the heightening of fears regarding closure. We would be rightly criticised if we did not occasionally critique ourselves against what is best practice in order to underpin the offering that the industry makes globally in its safety, provenance, etc. That is what these regional labs do. There is a process under way and staff should engage in that.

I am going to have to stop the Minister there. We have overrun the time on this question.

Agriculture Scheme Payments

Shane Cassells

Ceist:

12. Deputy Shane Cassells asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the total number of persons in County Meath that have not received 85% of their total 2016 payment under GLAS 1, GLAS 2 and AEOS; the reason for this delay; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12360/17]

I wish to ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the total number of persons in County Meath that have not received 85% of their total 2016 payment under GLAS 1, GLAS 2 and AEOS; the reason for the delay; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Under the EU regulations governing the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, and the agri-environment options scheme, AEOS, a comprehensive administrative check, including cross-checks with the land parcel identification system, must be completed before any payment can issue. 

My Department, as the accredited paying agency, must ensure that, before payment issues, everything in an application that can be checked is checked as required under the regulations. Therefore, payments can only issue when all the required validation checks have been successfully passed. As issues with outstanding GLAS cases are resolved, they are being paid in weekly instalments.

With regard to 2016 payments under AEOS, the previous agri-environment scheme, just over 8,600 AEOS participants were due a payment. AEOS II participants completed their five-year contracts on 31 December 2016. Under the EU regulations governing this scheme and all other area-based payment schemes, a full check, including cross-checks with the land parcel identification system must take place before the final payment can issue. As all AEOS II participants will be receiving their final payments under the scheme, re-checks on payments made for all scheme years must be completed before final payment can be processed. This is the same procedure as applied to AEOS I participants finishing in that scheme.

To date, AEOS 2016 payments amounting to over €22 million have issued. The remaining cases are currently being checked and payments will continue to issue on an ongoing weekly basis as these cases are cleared. A total of 83 farmers in County Meath were due a 2016 payment in AEOS, of which 68 have been paid and 15 are awaiting payment.

2016 payments represent the first full year of payment under GLAS. At the end of December 2016, there were approximately 37,500 active participants in the GLAS scheme, of which 27,400 or over 71% received payments valued at over €97 million, representing 85% of their 2016 payment.

As issues with outstanding GLAS cases are resolved they are being paid in weekly payment runs. Further payments are issuing on a weekly basis with payments valued at over €110 million now issued and over 84% of participants now paid. Further payments are issuing on a weekly basis.

I will give the Deputy the figures for County Meath.

The current position is that 66 farmers in GLAS I and 39 farmers in GLAS II have yet to receive their payments and their applications continue to be processed.

I welcome the statement from the Minister and the figures he provided, as well as the statement he provided earlier to Deputy Browne in the context of this matter. Why was there not an effective system in place before this point in time, given the frustration felt by farmers? It was agreed between the farming organisations and the Department that up to 75% of payments would commence in the third week of October with the balance of the payments being made in mid-December. It was reported in The Independent farming section this week that farmers still waiting on payments may have to wait until mid-summer. If that is the case, some farmers will have waited for seven months in total.

I have met many farmers in my constituency in Meath over the past few months. I saw earlier that Deputy Burke has a parliamentary question as well about part of his county in the Castlepollard region of north Westmeath, which comes into my constituency as well.

They have had great difficulty making contact with the Department to query the reasons for the delay with the payments.

I know what the Minister has said with regard to there being no issues in terms of overtime to prioritise this matter. I appeal for this to be taken with a greater sense of urgency. What is being done specifically in that respect?

I thank Deputy Cassells for his understanding. I appreciate the imperative that he has laid down in terms of getting these payments out as quickly as possible.

GLAS is probably the most complicated of schemes. There are over 30 separate menu options available to farmers under the scheme. When we cross-reference those actions to the basic payment application, the individual plots therein and the actions, it gives rise to a complicated scenario that, in turn, has given rise to difficulty.

The truth is that in December when we pressed the "pay" button, we had hoped that everyone would be paid and had financial provision made for that. Unfortunately, as the record shows, a substantial number were not. We continue to work through all of these. The reality is that we have had to eyeball every application to find out the specific issue, whether there is a fundamental problem relating to the basic payment application or a question of plots that are split and actions on plots that do not correlate. Another question is whether the problem goes back to an error in our processing. It is complicated but I assure the Deputy that it has the necessary urgency. I cannot specifically give a time but I assure the Deputy we are making every effort to get these payments out quickly.

I thank the Minister for the candid nature of his response. It is helpful even in terms of outlining the complexity. The majority of the cases of farmers that I have been dealing with in Bellivor and Castlepollard relate to access to information and the frustration they are experiencing in that respect. They have had to make financial adjustments because they had money earmarked for projects on their farms. Those projects would have increased productivity and profits. Instead the resources have had to be put into basic day-to-day bills and the running of the farms. The Minister and his colleagues are well aware of this.

Many farms, especially in disadvantaged areas, have low margins within which to work. These delays are not fair on the farmers concerned or their families.

I know we have discussed this issue in the Chamber on several occasions. What has happened is absolutely unacceptable. The Minister indicated in his response to Deputy Cassells that the Department expected that when those responsible pressed the "pay" button in December everyone would be paid and that the Department had the money allocated for that. However, it turned out differently. That is not acceptable. Surely with proper preparation these issues could have been highlighted in advance.

I know the Minister has said today that he does not want to give a date for the outstanding payments since he may not be able to stand over it. However, those who have not been paid yet were given a date that the Minister has been unable to stand over, that is to say, last December.

Recently, I was in a field with bird cover. The farmer had completed the action. It is working well in terms of wild birds coming to use it. However, the farmer has not yet been paid for the work done. Many farmers were expecting the payment last December. Now they face a wait until the summer.

There needs to be a major review in the Department of how this came about. Politically, we need to know how the problem was not spotted in advance and why the proper resources and preparations were not put in place to deal with it.

Apart from the basic payment scheme GLAS is, by a country mile, the most popular scheme with the Department. This is because of the most recent addition of approximately 13,000 new applicants. In the early part of 2016 a further 12,000 new applications were submitted as well. It is a remarkably successful scheme. It is also complex.

With all sincerity I suggest that regardless of who would be standing in this position, the situation would not be different. We are rolling out more schemes, including complex schemes. This week, we are launching the tillage TAMS scheme. That scheme was rightly demanded by the tillage sector. There are myriad other schemes.

It is a challenge to keep the information technology systems up to speed. We could take a different approach. We could decide to try to get everything right to the nth degree before we roll out anything else. However, what we want to do is get the schemes out to farmers. We are getting payment to them. We are late with payments. I confess that and I put my hands up. However, I assure the House that we are doing everything we possibly can to get the payments out as quickly as possible.

Animal Disease Controls

Martin Kenny

Ceist:

13. Deputy Martin Kenny asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if, in view of the fact the disease control measures for avian influenza are being implemented on an all-Ireland basis, he will lift the compulsory housing order on poultry on 16 March 2017 as is being done in Northern Ireland. [12338/17]

This question is in the name of Deputy Martin Kenny but is being taken by Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin.

Given the fact that the disease control measures for avian influenza are being implemented on an all-Ireland basis, will the Minister lift the compulsory housing order on poultry as of 16 March, next Thursday, as is now being done in the North of the island?

Since December 2016 there have been 12 confirmed cases of the H5N8 strain of avian influenza in wild birds in Ireland. In Northern Ireland there have been two confirmed cases in the same period.

In Europe, the virus was first detected in Hungary on 28 October. Events have evolved constantly ever since. There have been over 1,000 events recorded, 405 outbreaks in poultry, 29 in captive birds and 574 cases in wild birds. These cases have been recorded in 20 member states in 2017 as well as 750 cases in 2016. Hungary and France have had the highest number of outbreaks in poultry.

The situation is unprecedented in terms of the number of events and countries affected. If the epidemic is prolonged, as it was with the H5N1 strain in 2006, it could go on until May. There is also concern that HPAI H5N6, which is currently in South East Asia and has affected humans, could appear in Europe during the next migratory season.

On 23 December last my Department announced regulations under the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013 requiring flock keepers to confine all poultry and captive birds in their possession or under their control in a secure building to which wild birds or other animals do not have access and to apply specific bio-security measures. This is the first time such action had been taken by this Department. The requirement to keep birds confined was extended on 23 January 2017 and it remains in place.

I note that this week the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland announced the lifting of a compulsory housing order from 17 March. However, that Department intends to retain an avian influenza prevention zone until the end of April. This measure is designed to allow poultry owners to let their birds outside, but introduces some additional bio-security requirements for those that chose to do so.

My Department has engaged in ongoing consultation with stakeholders, including producers and representative organisations regarding the possibility of the requirement for birds to be housed remaining in place after 17 March 2017. I have carefully assessed the epidemiological situation in Ireland; the number and distribution of findings in wild birds; advice with regard to migratory patterns of wild birds over the next number of weeks; the continued need to protect, as much as possible, Irish flocks and the industry from exposure to infection; the continued retention of OIE avian influenza-free status by Ireland; and Ireland's continued access to third country markets. In this regard I announced on 8 March my decision to continue the confinement notice that is currently in place beyond 17 March, until 30 April 2017, at which time the confinement notice will end. The decision reflects a careful assessment and evaluation of the information and data specific to Ireland and is in the best interests of the poultry industry in Ireland.

We will migrate back to Deputy Ó Caoláin.

The priority interest is indeed the poultry industry. As a representative of Cavan and Monaghan I cannot but be aware of how important that is to our local economy.

The question is not to press the Minister; it is to establish the position. I note from the Minister's reply that he is intent on continuing the housing order until 30 April. Will the Minister review it in the intervening period? Is the date set by the Minister absolute and not for reconsideration?

I thank the Minister for the reply to my parliamentary question that I received recently on the matter instancing the identified or recorded cases. Can the Minister indicate to us how up-to-date the associated figures are? Do they reflect recent recordings? That was not clear from the reply given by the Minister. Is there a period leading up to our engagement this afternoon during which there has been no recorded instances? How up to date or current are the recorded cases of bird deaths as a result of the avian flu?

I suspect the figure I gave - 12 confirmed cases - is up to date. These matters tend to be in the public domain as soon as they are identified. There may be cases of which I am unaware that are under scrutiny in the laboratory services to confirm whether the deaths are due to avian influenza but I suspect the figures are the most up to date figures.

We took a range of issues into account. These include migration patterns and epidemiological factors. A critical point is that we have OIE international certification that our confined poultry flocks are avian influenza free. This is important in terms of the market access it gives us. The United Kingdom does not have such status, meaning Northern Ireland does not. The industry in the Deputy's constituency, Cavan-Monaghan, exists cheek by jowl with that in Northern Ireland. Our position is different from that in the North in that we have OIE acknowledged avian influenza free status. That allows us to have unaffected markets. If we were to have an incident, the status would disappear.

The Minister referred to 12 cases. My question was not implying this is not the most up to date information; it was to ascertain when the cases occurred. Did they occur in February last, for instance, or further back in time? Has there been a period during which there was no recorded incident?

With regard to the control measures, is the Minister giving any consideration to a review to help to identify cases? How satisfied is the Minister that there is wide public awareness and knowledge of the threat presented to the poultry sector by avian influenza? Have members of the public been clearly informed, to the Minister's satisfaction, as to what reporting procedure should apply on the discovery of wild birds that may have died as a consequence of the avian influenza virus?

The first incident was in Wexford on 30 December 2016 and the remainder of the 12 cases arose, on a rather frequent basis, in the intervening period. I do not have the exact date of the most recent case but I recollect it was not that long ago. This would have informed the steps we took.

I acknowledge the assistance of the public. The first incident, which was in Wexford, was brought to the attention of the Department by a member of the public. Tests confirmed avian influenza. There have been incidents in Galway and all around the country since. Departmental communication was specifically geared towards the industry itself in terms of the steps it can take, through biosecurity, to minimise the risk. We cannot even guarantee that, by retaining the flocks indoors, we will avoid avian influenza. It is, however, the best possible course of action to minimise the risk. I do not propose a review between now and the end of April. As with others, I obviously hope that will be the time of the final order to retain flocks indoors. We will have to keep the matter under review at that stage given the incidents. It is critical to note that migratory activities will have peaked and subsided by that stage. These are contributory factors.

Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.
Barr
Roinn