Vol. 961 No. 2
38. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if all RDP 2014 to 2020 funding will be fully expended by the end of 2020 in all RDP schemes; if the targets for scheme participation levels will be reached; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47190/17]
I want to ask the Minister if he expects all of the rural development programme money from 2014 to 2020 to be fully expended by the end of 2020 across all rural development programme schemes and if all targets for scheme participation levels will be reached. I would appreciate if the Minister would update us on that matter.
Ireland’s rural development programme 2014–2020 represents a substantial investment by both the EU and the national Exchequer in the agri-food sector and in Irish farmers. The programme is co-funded by the EU’s European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, EAFRD, to a sum of €2.19 billion over the programme lifespan. This EU funding is supplemented by Exchequer funding, bringing the total allocation to €4 billion, a substantial vote of confidence in Irish farming. The programme covers a suite of measures, both ambitious and broad, and supports all farming sectors. These measures reflect the issues, challenges and opportunities which Irish agriculture faces, and were put in place after lengthy consultation and analysis. The programme aims to enhance competitiveness, to encourage more sustainable farming practices and to deliver real and quantifiable results for rural communities and the rural economy generally. Achieving these results depends to a great extent on farmers engaging with and participating in the various schemes and initiatives on offer and I am pleased to say that, as with previous rural development programmes in Ireland, farmers are enthusiastically signing up to schemes under this rural development programme. In fact, Ireland leads other member states in terms of our implementation of the rural development programme and currently has the second highest rate of draw-down of EU funds among all member states. The average EU financial rate for draw-down of funds up to the end of August 2017 was 22.68%, whereas Ireland’s execution rate was 39.01%. This progress is testament to the successful roll-out, uptake and implementation of schemes under the programme to date.
I fully anticipate that based on current up-take and projections, the entire budget allocation of some €4 billion for the rural development programme will be spent and that the entire €2.19 billion of EU co-funding will be drawn down. It is expected that the majority of funds will be spent by the end of 2020, although there will be some carry-over. Under EU regulations governing the rural development programme, funds for multi-annual commitments entered into by the end of 2020 may be claimed up to the end of 2023. Rural development programme spending is also subject to the annual Estimates process and budgetary rules, but this should not affect the overall spend and any European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development, EAFRD, funds unspent in a year are carried forward to subsequent years.
In terms of rural development programme participation levels, I am pleased to say that there has been excellent uptake to date. At this stage of the programme, some multi-annual schemes such as the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, beef data and genomics programme, BDGP, and the organic farming schemes are now closed and are fully subscribed. Other schemes such as areas of natural constraint, ANC, are applied for on an annual basis, and others such as the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS, will continue to recruit participants in tranches.
Reaching the targets set out within the rural development programme is central to meeting the objectives of the programme and to producing the desired results and outcomes. It is therefore important that progression toward these targets is kept under review. To this end, and in line with EU regulatory requirements, my Department carries out an annual review of implementation by reporting on indicators collected on all schemes and measures. This annual implementation report, and a citizens' summary on the results of this assessment is, once approved by the Commission, published on the Department’s website. We will continue to review the implementation of the programme to ensure that we are on target to meet all identified objectives and that all EU funding is fully drawn down.
The Minister continues with the fallacy that all is hunky-dory with the rural development programme when it is clear that he and the Government are failing to live up to the promises they made about spending on the programme and the participation rates across the various schemes. At present, only 30% of the funds have been used, which means that €2.7 billion of the funds promised to farmers have still to be spent by the end of 2020. Participation rates across all the schemes are running behind target. For example, participation in the beef data and genomics programme, BDGP, is 27% behind the original target of 35,000 participants. The participation rate in the knowledge transfer group schemes is running at nearly 50% behind the target, with 19,000 farmers signed up when the initial objective was 27,000 farmers.
The green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, in particular, is running behind the promised commitment the former Minister, Deputy Coveney, made on behalf of Fine Gael and the Government in respect of the rural development programme and the €1.4 billion over the course of the scheme. On the basis of calculations and responses to parliamentary questions which I have received, it is clear that the maximum spend now will be no more than €214 million per year. The former Minister, Deputy Coveney, promised it would be €250 million per year when the scheme was at its maximum. When one calculates all of that, it means that spending under GLAS can be no more than €1.18 billion by 2021. That is allowing for it to run into the next rural development programme and for everybody in GLAS to be fully paid. It is over €200 million less. It is time for the Minister to come clean. Either he will spend the money or he should state that farmers were sold a pup when the former Minister, Deputy Coveney, announced that the scheme would provide €1.4 billion over the course of the rural development programme.
Quite simply, I disagree entirely with the Deputy's analysis. It is not borne out by the facts. The average rate of drawdown across the European Union is 22.68%. Ireland's drawdown is 39.01%. We are way ahead of the posse in terms of our drawdown of the EU element of the rural development programme and across the range of schemes. The Deputy referred to GLAS. More than 50,000 farmers, or almost every second farmer in the country, is a participant in GLAS. It is the flagship scheme. It is a critical part of the rural development programme and of our climate change strategy in conjunction with the BDGP, for example. These are multi-annual schemes. With regard to GLAS, I am currently waiting for thousands of farmers to submit nutrient management plans in order that we can pay them this year. However, we are still contractually committed to paying them for five years and the budgetary commitment-----
How much will that add up to at the end of five years?
As I have said repeatedly, there will be a full drawdown of 50,000 applicants over five years-----
What is the figure?
Average payments are approximately €4,500.
Tell me the total figure.
To the best of my recollection, it is approximately €300 million. It is 50,000 farmers and an average payment of almost €4,500. If the farmer has Natura lands, there is a possibility of a top-up up to €7,000.
When every last GLAS farmer is paid, what will the total figure be?
Deputy McConalogue will be able to ask another question.
I can get the exact figures on that for the Deputy. I acknowledge the Deputy's right to be wrong, and consistently wrong-----
The Minister must be looking in the mirror.
-----but we will draw down all of the funding under the rural development programme and we will honour all of the contractual obligations we have under the scheme.
The Minister says he will draw down all the funding from Europe under this scheme. He consistently sticks to that line. However, the rural development programme is co-funded. It has a European element and that is co-funded from the Exchequer. The Minister is very deliberately talking about what he is going to draw down from Europe. The reality is totally different from what the Minister is presenting. Need I remind the Minister again that the former Minister, Deputy Coveney, promised more than €1.4 billion? I have the press releases with me from the Irish Farmers' Association, IFA, the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, ICMSA, the Irish Cattle & Sheep Farmers' Association, ICSA, the Irish Farmers' Journal and, importantly, from the then Minister, Deputy Coveney, that promise more than €1.4 billion and €250 million per year. This year GLAS is at its maximum and only €214 million is being spent. When that is rolled out to the end of 2021, and that means rolling it into the next rural development programme and allowing every farmer currently in GLAS to be paid every penny due to him or her under the scheme, the maximum that will amount to will be almost €250 million less than the more than €1.4 billion promised by the former Minister, Deputy Coveney. That is the reality. Either Deputy Coveney sold a pup and misled the farming community and the farming press when he announced the GLAS scheme or this Minister is underspending and failing to deliver on his commitment. Which is it? It is time to step up, be honest and let farmers know the situation.
What I am saying today is what I have repeated on numerous occasions. The rural development programme is a scheme of €4 billion, with €2.19 billion in EU funding and the balance funded by the Exchequer. We are on target to draw down all of the EU funding and to pay all of the matching funds required to draw down that funding. GLAS is the flagship scheme in the rural development programme. More than 50,000 farmers are contractually committed for five years and we will honour all of them. We are on target to draw down all of the funding available from Europe under the rural development programme.
39. Deputy Martin Kenny asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his plans for a fodder aid package to farmers affected by extreme weather conditions over the past two months. [47189/17]
This is the same question I put to the Minister on the previous occasion we had questions in the House. A fodder crisis is developing and has already developed in the north west and along the western seaboard. Deputy Scanlon has tabled a similar question to mine on this. The one thing we would like to get from the Minister today is his agreement that there is a crisis and that something must be done about it. Perhaps we could get that much at least. Farmers are in a terrible situation. Last weekend, I saw farmers trying to make silage in pools of water in my part of the country. That is happening throughout the country. The fodder they are producing will be of extremely poor quality, and if they have to buy fodder, the prices will be through the roof. Farmers are selling their cattle rather than face a winter crisis without fodder. The Minister must step up to the mark and try to do something about it.
My Department has been closely monitoring weather conditions, grass growth and feed supplies. It is clear that the weather conditions over recent weeks have been challenging, and this has created difficulties for farmers in parts of the country, particularly in the western regions.
Grass growth rates through September and October were ahead of recent years. Data from Pasturebase Ireland indicate that production is running about 1 tonne dry matter per hectare ahead of last year. Notwithstanding this, grazing conditions deteriorated from mid-August on farms with heavier land. This has given farmers a number of challenging weeks managing livestock, with animals having to be temporarily housed and difficulties with securing later cut silage. I note that there appear to be reasonable supplies of feed and fodder available across the country for those farmers who may have to supplement their own fodder supply. Given these challenges, I have asked Teagasc to work locally in areas with fodder difficulties so as to support good budgeting of fodder supplies on farms for the winter ahead.
The European Commission agreed to my request for an advance payment of the 2017 basic payment scheme, BPS. This has been prompted by the protracted inclement weather conditions and also market difficulties caused by currency fluctuations. This means an increase from 50% to 70% in the advance payment rate for the BPS to those applicants whose applications were confirmed fully clear. These payments were recently issued and balancing payments will be made with effect from 1 December. There will also be an increase permitted to the advance for Pillar 2 rural development schemes such as GLAS. These payments and the payments under the areas of natural constraints scheme are injecting up to €800 million into the rural economy and will provide a very welcome boost for Irish farm families.
Taking account of this, there are no plans at this time to establish a fodder aid scheme. My Department will continue to monitor the situation closely.
The telling statement from the Minister is that there are no plans at present. I hope that means he is monitoring the situation closely and that something will be done. The vast majority of farmers in the north west, who are mainly suckler farmers, are already experiencing an income crisis. They are getting such a poor price for their product that they find themselves under huge pressure. Now they are facing a fodder crisis. Every week the marts in the north west are full of cows being sold by farmers because they are facing a winter in which they will not have any fodder for their cattle. We are facing a real crisis. It is a crisis for the industry. If there is no supply of weanlings next spring because farmers are not producing them, that will produce a further crisis down the road.
It is a matter of a stitch in time saving nine. We must intervene in time and recognise that there is a crisis, and that the Government has a responsibility to do something about it.
I appreciate that there are farmers getting various aid packages and schemes such as GLAS, to which they are entitled for the work they do under the agreements that they have signed up for. This is different. It is something that has arisen due to the inclement weather conditions. We are not talking about spending a fortune but a relatively small sum of money targeted in the right place, but it must be done through a scheme in order that farmers can have confidence and in order that they will not go the market and sell their cattle but will keep them in the knowledge that there is a backup.
I fully acknowledge the Deputy's points. Even in my own constituency on the heavier ground, I know underfoot grazing conditions have deteriorated and that although there is still substantial grass cover because of the mild wet weather, it is not suitable for letting cattle out on. In parts of the country, cattle have been kept inside for a protracted period.
I have asked Teagasc to monitor closely the situation on the ground through its network of advisers. We estimate that there is sufficient fodder across the country-----
It is too expensive.
-----but it may be that in some areas there is a deficit and in others there is a surplus. We will monitor the situation. We do not envisage that the crisis is on the scale that the Deputy has spoken about. In individual cases where there may be welfare issues arising because of fodder, there is a contact point in the Department for this and the Department may step in to assist individual farmers. At an overall level, it is not currently at a magnitude that we believe merits the kind of scheme that the Deputy spoke of, but we will keep it under constant observation.
It always seems to be the case that the main point is missed out. We know it is being monitored by Teagasc people on the ground, and in fairness, they are advising farmers and working alongside them and doing their best. What is needed is an acknowledgement that something should be put in place to reassure farmers and inform them that they have an option for the future and that something will be done if this crisis deteriorates further.
Last week, I spoke to a farmer who had made a cut of silage in mid-June. Half of that silage is now gone and he never managed a second cut. That is a problem for many farmers in the north west. They cannot get out on the land. The Minister talks about the grass growing, but while the grass can grow through the roof, the cattle cannot walk on the land. It is that simple. It is too wet. The farmers need to be reassured that the Minister will put a scheme in place that will be there for them, and telling them that it will be done one by one does not give them that reassurance. The doubt is in their mind that it will not work out. They may think that cattle are a bad price, and if they are still a bad price next spring it would be as well to sell the whole lot now. Then we will be in a situation where there is a scarcity of weanlings and that will have an effect on the beef sector. It is a matter of stepping in on time and doing the right thing.
The last thing we want to see is farmers selling the seed potato or the suckler cow. We do not want to see that. If there is a message that both I and the Deputy wish to send to farmers now, it is that they should engage with their advisory service to help them budget through with whatever feed they have and any supplement that might be needed. Teagasc, the State's advisory service, will keep my Department informed on the scale of the problem and whether it requires a scaling-up of the response beyond what we are now discussing. I am satisfied that there is sufficient fodder in the country, though there may be regional imbalances. It is unlike previous years where fodder was required and the State stepped in and imported it from the UK. I do not see that as being the case but it must be constantly monitored.
40. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the status of the programme for Government commitment to propose a lowering of the cap on basic payments. [47191/17]
Will the Minister update the Dáil on the progress on the programme for Government commitment to propose a lowering of the cap on basic payments to €100,000 for which the Minister said he would try to secure the support of his European colleagues?
The 2016 programme for Government undertook to propose a lowering of the cap on basic payments from €150,000 to €100,000 during a mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP. However, due to the ongoing simplification and modernisation programme of the existing CAP, it is unlikely that a mid-term review of the existing CAP will now take place.
Since 16 October 2015, the maximum amount payable to any one applicant under the basic payment scheme in Ireland, excluding the greening payment, is capped at €150,000 per annum. This option is set down in regulation 1307/2013, which establishes the current rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the current CAP. Ireland actively supported the concept of a maximum level during the current CAP negotiations back in 2013. A further lowering of the limit would require a legislative change of the Basic Act 1307/2013 (Direct Payments Regulation) in Council. I am however committed to addressing this matter in the context of future reform of the CAP, with the European Commission scheduled to publish a communication on the CAP post 2020 on 29 November 2017.
The Minister's response does not outline the efforts that he has made to achieve the commitment in the programme for Government. It sounds as though he is content to kick the matter to touch until the next CAP programme and stand over yet another broken promise from this Government to farmers. It is the Minister's own programme for Government. It was a firm commitment, and while it may have been included because the Deputy's party was engaging with other parties at the time and that is why it was included, there has been no follow-through nor is the Minister falling over himself to outline what he has tried to do. He is basically saying it cannot be done and we will see what happens in future. Maybe I am wrong and am being unduly harsh towards the Minister, but perhaps he will outline the efforts that he has made with his European counterparts to achieve this objective. It would be expected that when it is in the programme for Government, a genuine effort would be made to achieve it. Fianna Fáil's submission to the next CAP gives a commitment to introduce a maximum CAP payment of €60,000. The leaked draft document indicates that the Commission is considering a cap of between €60,000 and €100,000. Will the Minister say what efforts he has made to achieve it in terms of a mid-term review of the current CAP programme?
To pursue the commitments in the programme for Government, which were entered into in good faith, there is a requirement that the door would be kept open at Commission level for a mid-term review of the CAP. That has not happened. As the Deputy is aware, having referred to his party's own submission and the leaked document from the Commission, without a mid-term review there would be headlong progress into the next round of the CAP after 2020. There are leaked documents on maximum payments under the basic payment scheme in that regard, and I support going in that direction. It is worth noting in the context of the last CAP when the then Minister, Deputy Coveney ,was in office, Ireland campaigned for a significantly lower reduction than the one which was ultimately achieved, but the level of political resistance to it across members states is very substantial. We availed of the maximum discretion available to us to reduce the cap to €150,000. The programme for Government commitment was contingent on there being a mid-term review of CAP. That has not happened. We cannot engineer a mid-term review of CAP for one member state alone. It is a common policy across the 28 member states. The fact that it has not happened has made it more difficult. We are engaged in the context of the next round of CAP, and while we would support a further reduction, from previous experience we are conscious that achieving that is not easy.
Deputy McConalogue has one minute for his final supplementary.
The Minister will be aware of the adage, "If you don't ask, you won't get". In this case, it sounds as though the Minister did not ask and that he was quite happy not to get it. That commitment is done and dusted and counts for nothing in the programme for Government because it is clear from the Minister's answer that it will not happen in the current CAP programme.
On the wider issue in respect of CAP, as the Minister is well aware, the stakes are particularly high for the farming community as an average of 75% of a farmer's income comes from CAP payments. It is crucial that the next CAP programme does not see a dilution of the overall CAP budget. In light of the prospect of the UK leaving the EU and its contribution being removed, there is going to be a very real need for other countries, including our own, to increase contributions in order to maintain that budget. Is that something which the Minister will be willing to do? As a country, can we make a commitment that will be the approach and direction we will take and the outcome we will seek to achieve?
I have made the point on a number of occasions, although I am not sure if I have made it here publicly, that we should be prepared to contemplate an increase in our contribution to the EU budget. I would not like to see us making an increased contribution to the overall European Union budget if we did not see it reflected in an increased level of funding for the CAP. I accept that Europe faces many challenges, but the new challenges require new money. There should not be a raid on the CAP budget as that programme has been a spectacular success, not just in terms of support for farming, but also in terms of the public goods which have been delivered. No state has its hand up at the moment to say that it is prepared to take less. No state has its hand up to say that it is prepared to pay more in. In fact, it is the contrary in almost every respect. Member states want to pay less and take more. That is obviously an unsustainable position. This Government will not shy away from the possibility of having to contribute more but we would like to ensure that, in contributing more, the CAP will be adequately funded.
41. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his views on whether Coillte's recent announcement that it is examining 25 of its land parcels and seeking partnerships with private developers to develop these sites as industrial wind farms represents a significant diversion and potentially conflicts with its core mandate to protect the national forest estate and promote afforestation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47188/17]
The Minister may have read the article, and has probably been made aware by Coillte itself, that it recently announced that it would be looking at 25 of its land parcels with a view to developing large-scale industrial wind farms in partnership with the private sector. Does the Minister not think this is another example of Coillte departing from its core function, which is to be the guardian, protector and promoter of Ireland's forest estate? Does he not think that it should concentrate on that? This measure will almost certainly involve cutting down trees on those sites rather than growing them, which is what Coillte is supposed to do. It is just another example of the back-door commercialisation and semi-privatisation of Coillte, when it should be concerning itself with Ireland's forest estate.
I thank the Deputy for his question. If that was the case I would indeed be concerned. Coillte was established as a private commercial company under the Forestry Act 1988 and day-to-day operational matters, such as the management of its lands, are the responsibility of the company. I recently had the opportunity to meet with the chairman and the CEO of Coillte and we reviewed the performance of the company. I was very impressed with the direction of the company and I noted in particular the dividend of €7.2 million it paid to the Exchequer last year.
The matter of its wind farms portfolio was raised with Coillte which advises it has, over the last number of years, refocused its business on core forestry with the ambition of becoming the best forestry and land solutions company in Europe. The company advises that a key part of this strategy is to grow its forestry business and to maximise the value of non-core land. I understand that a key driver for Coillte wanting to bring in a partner on future renewable projects is that it agrees its core focus should be on forestry and land solutions and has no intention of becoming a utility company. Coillte expects that, by bringing in a partner, it will be able to stay focused on its core business and extract value from its non-core forestry land. The company outlined the rationale for this proposed approach at my recent meeting with it.
In respect of afforestation generally, I would like to stress the Government’s commitment to the increase of the national forest estate through the ongoing allocation of funding to support afforestation and other measures. This commitment is evident from the forestry allocation announced as part of budget 2018. The allocation of €106 million, including a capital carryover, for forestry development will allow for the planting of over 6,600 ha of new forests next year.
First of all, the 6,000 ha which the Minister is talking about is a massive undershoot on what is necessary in order for us to reach our target, which keeps shifting out in any event, but which is currently to move from a pathetic 11% rate of forest cover to 17%. In deference to my Sinn Féin colleague, I stress that we do not want to see the expansion of the industrial sitka spruce type of afforestation but rather the development of native broadleaf species, particularly in uplands. I suspect that these are precisely the areas where these very controversial industrial wind farms will be developed. Major questions lie over these farms in terms of the contribution they will make to net carbon reduction in real terms. On the other hand, we know that native broadleaf forests contribute in a measurable way to net carbon reduction through acting as carbon sinks. We also know that they enhance biodiversity and, critically, help mitigate flooding downstream. In Wales, big projects are going on lands which would not be considered suitable for industrial or commercial forestry. Native broadleaf species are being grown on the uplands for their biodiversity benefits, for their carbon sink benefits, but also because they mitigate flooding. It has made a tangible difference downstream in terms of mitigating flooding. Why is Coillte not doing that instead of building more industrial wind farms?
First of all I should apologise for the Minister of State, Deputy Andrew Doyle, who is unavoidably absent today. This is his core area of responsibility. It is not at all as if Coillte is abandoning its core objective on these lands, which may have potential for wind harvest. The nature of much of Coillte's estate is that they are elevated lands which, apart from being suitable for growing trees, also have the potential for quite a substantial wind harvest in terms of energy generation. During the meeting I had with it, the company really wanted to convey that it is very anxious to get back to the core business of growing trees and putting more trees in the ground. To do that, it must be able to generate the funds from its assets and to sweat them, including land which has potential for wind generation. Appropriately managed, such measures will secure funding which will enable it to drive the core business forward. That is important.
The Deputy talks about what he might term the paltry targets in respect of our annual planting of 6,600 ha. That is a challenge in itself. We have, in recent years, been struggling to meet that level of ambition. Obviously, it is positive that Coillte is actively considering re-engaging in the market and planting new lands and new trees, as is the private sector which can avail of the grants which are available. It must be borne in mind that Coillte is not entitled to benefit from that grant aid. We are putting our money where our mouth is as a Government and are providing €106 million for forestry and substantial supports for afforestation. I agree with the Deputy in terms of land management. It is worthwhile to pursue action on the mix between broadleaf and sitka spruce and so on.
I do not want to be intervening all the time, but I would remind Ministers and Deputies that the clocks are there and they should keep an eye on them. We will see how Deputy Boyd Barrett performs now.
Putting up these big wind turbines involves pouring masses of concrete for the bases. There are very real questions about whether there is a tangible net benefit in terms of CO2 reduction when the transport costs of bringing concrete up, building roads up to the top of these mountains to put up these wind farms, and so on are taken into account. That is opposed to growing trees, which does not have all those downside consequences in terms of climate mitigation but has all the upsides from every single point of view. Coillte is not delivering. It is an absolute scandal. The Minister is right to refer to this, but we should be fighting it. It is an absolute scandal that the State forestry company cannot engage in afforestation because of flipping EU state aid rules. It is a shocker. We should be screaming from the rooftops about how mad that is. This is against a background of Europe setting these targets and telling us to be serious about CO2 reduction, carbon sinks and so on while at the same time preventing our State forestry company from doing forestry, thereby forcing it into doing other things such as linking up with the private sector in the back-door privatisation of valuable State forest and land assets.
My effort is lost in terms of trying to convey that it is not a case of either wind energy or trees. In fact, the objective is to try to maximise the potential of some of the sites to harvest wind in order that the company will have the resources to reinvest in its core business. That kind of refocusing on the core business is a direction of travel that I believe is welcome.
The next question is in the name of Deputy Pringle. I send to him the good wishes of the House for a speedy recovery.
Tá cead agam a cheist a ardú.
An tugadh cead duit?
Sea, tugadh. Rinne oifig an Theachta Pringle teagmháil leis an Cheann Comhairle.
Glacaim leat. Glacaimse le d'fhocail.
42. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine when he plans to sign a new statutory instrument that will bring into force a penalty points system for fishing offences and that will establish a points determination panel; if recourse to the courts will apply for fishermen and women with fishing penalty points; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47187/17]
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Leas-Cheann Comhairle. My question is on when the Minister will sign the statutory instrument that will bring into force a penalty points system for fishing offences given the background that pertains here, namely, our obligations under EU regulations, the fact that the statutory instrument introduced in 2014 was found to be not fit for purpose, the implications of pilot proceedings against the State by the European Commission, that funding under the European Maritime Fisheries Fund has been suspended and so on? Will the Minister please clarify the position?
I would like to be associated with the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's good wishes to Deputy Pringle. I thank Deputy Connolly for taking this question. It is an important one at this time.
The European Union (Common Fisheries Policy) (Point System) Regulations 2016, SI 125 of 2016, establish a points system which will apply to the licenceholder of a sea-fishing boat when a serious infringement of the Common Fisheries Policy is detected. It is intended that the new statutory instrument, which I intend to sign shortly, will amend SI 125 of 2016 to change the make-up of the determination panel set up under the 2016 statutory instrument to determine whether, on the balance of probabilities, a serious infringement occurred and whether it is a serious infringement. This will involve the appointment of three independent legal professionals nominated by the Attorney General, thereby completely separating the enforcement and determination functions. The new statutory instrument will, to the extent that it is possible, take on board the issues of concern regarding procedures and processes highlighted in the High Court judgments on this matter. It will also amend SI 125 of 2016 to address certain minor technical and drafting issues arising.
In June 2016, I advised the Oireachtas that, subject to addressing some important legal and administrative issues, I was hopeful about moving towards a system of sequential application of EU points in conjunction with the prosecution process, having consulted the Attorney General's office. I made it clear that this move was subject to addressing some important legal and administrative issues to ensure compliance with EU law.
There has been extensive examination and consideration of all the issues in regard to meeting our EU obligations to implement the points system in the interim. The firm legal view available to me is that it is not possible to deliver on an effective and dissuasive points system, as required under EU law, by assigning points to licenceholders upon successful prosecution.
Accordingly, as is the case with SI 125 of 2016, it is intended that the new statutory instrument will provide that points assigned to a holder of an Irish licence will remain assigned regardless of any criminal proceedings pending, or the outcome of any such proceedings, in respect of the serious infringement concerned. Under the new statutory instrument, the licenceholder may appeal on a point of law a decision of the independent fisheries adjudicator to the High Court. In the 2014 statutory instrument, this appeal was "final and conclusive". This aspect of the provision has been removed.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
It should be noted in this context that pilot infringement proceedings by the European Commission for non-implementation of the EU points system have been taken against Ireland. It remains an option for the Commission to proceed to formal infringement proceedings in respect of the licenceholder system.
There are also serious implications with regard to the release of funding under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, EMFF. Implementation of the EU points system was an ex ante condition for the approval of Ireland's EMFF programme, given that the programme is intended to facilitate the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy in Ireland. The European Commission has signalled in writing that the delivery of funding under Ireland's EMFF operational programme is firmly linked to the implementation of the points system. This programme is investing €241 million of EU or Exchequer funding in total in the fisheries sector over the lifetime of the programme, which is crucial at a time of Brexit uncertainty. The immediate concern is with regard to the control and data collection funds. The European Commission wrote in July 2017 advising that due to the non-implementation of the points system, EMFF funding allocated for control spend will be suspended.
Having an effective, proportionate and dissuasive system of points for all fishing vessels, Irish and non-Irish, operating in our 200 mile zone is beneficial to maintaining the sustainability of fish stocks on which our seafood sector is dependent. This system will ensure that the vast majority of our law abiding fishermen are able to compete effectively and look forward to a sustainable future in the industry.
The word "shortly" is not satisfactory. This is a complete debacle, leaving aside the fact that there are criminal proceedings over the penalty system. It is unacceptable and exceptional in the European context that we have two types of punishment system. We are obliged under EU law to bring in a fair penalty system, but this has been going on since 2012, in which year we were put under an obligation. In 2014, the statutory instrument was struck down by the courts and the one introduced in 2016 was never operational because it was not fit for purpose either. Here we are in 2017 and the Minister is telling us he will shortly introduce a statutory instrument. I would like to know when. What consultation has there been with fishermen? What changes have been made? Are the fishermen the Minister has consulted happier with the new system?
In fact, the timeline is slightly worse than the Deputy outlined. The original obligation to move in this direction under EU regulations dates back as far as 2009. Therefore, the period is considerable. There are many reasons for that. I intend to proceed very shortly with the new statutory instrument. I am awaiting the final drafting procedures, and while I imagine we will be moving in the required direction this side of Christmas, I hope it will be before the end of this month at the very latest.
The Deputy is correct in her analysis. There are pilot infringement proceedings against the State on this matter. More important, with regard to EMFF funding, which is available for fishermen, onshore processing and other elements of the fishing industry, it has always been made clear to us that its availability is conditional on the implementation of the regulation. It has been communicated to us in no uncertain terms that the funding is now in the crosshairs of the Commission in the context of our failure to move.
I have examined this matter extensively. I commented on it previously in the Oireachtas in the context of the 2016 statutory instrument, which it is intended the new statutory instrument will replace. What we have attempted to do is to take on board, as far as is practical, many of the concerns expressed by the industry. I met industry representatives recently to discuss this matter. I met all the producer organisations. It is fair to say that they are not entirely happy but we must bear in mind the legal proceedings, the findings of the European Court of Auditors and the conditions attached to our EMFF funding. It is often forgotten that this is not just an instrument that will be used in respect of our domestic fishing industry. The fishing industry generally often makes the point that other EU member states also fish in our waters, and this will be an instrument to ensure compliance on their part also.
Will the Minister clarify what funding has been suspended under the EMFF? When was it suspended? Will we get it back?
I understand that the concerns, apart from the delay in implementation, pertain to the independence of the system being set up. It was already shot down by the courts, in January 2016. The Government has gone some way towards improving the process, with an independent review board and so on, but the difficulty is that it is the Attorney General who will be nominating those who sit on the review panel. It is the very same Attorney General who has a role in the prosecution. Perhaps the Minister would clarify the position and the concerns that arose when he consulted the relevant stakeholders. When did the consultation take place?
I meet the producer organisations regularly. I met them most recently about a fortnight ago to discuss this matter.
EMFF funding amounts to approximately €241 million. It has been made clear to us that this funding, although not suspended at this stage, is conditional. The control and data collection side are in the crosshairs of the Commission in the first instance. I am concerned that failure to act could put the entire fund at risk. I do not intend to run that risk.
What was the Deputy's other question?
It was on the independence of the panel being set up.
My intention is to have the Attorney General provide me with a list of suitably qualified people to be appointed to the panel by me subsequently.
