Priority Questions
1. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the total projected spend under the Rural Development Programme 2007-13; the approximate spend that would occur under Pillar 2 of the rural development programme in the event of the Government only providing the minimum funding to drawn down the full European Union allocation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [53198/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraI hope the Minister will answer to the point the questions I have asked today about the spend on Pillar 2 for 2007-13, and the minimum possible spend for 2014-2020, allowing for the full drawdown of EU funding.
Under the rural development programme for 2007-13, there is a total allocation of some €4.8 billion over the lifetime of the programme. Of this allocation, over €4 billion has been spent to date. The European Council agreement on the multi-annual financial framework provides some €313 million per year for the new rural development programme for the period 2014-20, or a total of €2.19 billion, for Ireland under Pillar 2 of the CAP. A general EU co-financing rate of 53% is set out in the draft rural development regulation but this rate may rise to a maximum of 80% for measures such as farm and business development, co-operation activities, and LEADER projects. Environmental type measures may be co-funded up to 75%. The total Exchequer funding that will be required to draw down the available European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development funding will depend on the types of measures included in the new rural development programme and on the co-financing rates applied to these measures.
Work is currently ongoing in my Department to design the new rural development programme for the period 2014–20. In designing the new rural development programme, my Department must take account of the range of requirements set out in the draft rural development regulation and the need to support key policy aims for the agrifood sector in the light of the Food Harvest 2020 strategy. A number of ex-ante analyses are being undertaken and a public consultation process has also taken place.
If the Deputy is looking for an estimate on the minimum spend to get acceptance of a rural development programme from the Commission, I think we would have to be spending an average of about €430-450 million per year on average. That would involve providing minimum co-financing from the Exchequer for a full drawdown. I find that approach totally unacceptable and I have been working intensively with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform for the last ten days to try to agree an approach to rural development will recognise the potential for growth and expansion in the rural, and which will give agriculture, agrifood and the rural economy the priority they deserve. However, that must happen within the context of the resources available to the Government, and I think people need to be ambitious but also realistic about what is possible.
I would like to thank the Minister for confirming that under the deal he negotiated, we could see Pillar 2 drop from €4.8 billion the last time to €3.1 billion this time, which is a drop of around 47%.
I would like to make a correction. The €4.8 billion figure is the wrong figure.
The Minister himself said €4.8 billion.
It does not matter with him-----
Please, Deputy Ó Cuív only has one minute.
The Minister said that the programme is worth €4.8 billion.
I said that the spend to date is €4 billion.
However, there is two years left to spend under this programme. The allocation for 2007-13 is €4.8 billion, and I presume that the Minister will have spent the €4.8 billion by the time we get to the end of the programme plus two years.
That is the intention.
For the next programme there could again be two years added on at the end, and the spend could be as low as €3.1 billion. Will the Minister accept that it was very poor negotiation on his behalf, as President of the European Council, to allow such low co-funding from member states? This is the particularly the case when we take into account the fact that Pillar 1 is much larger and does not require any co-funding, and when we look at the multiplier effect in the rural economy of spending on agriculture.
I would not accept that thesis. Perhaps the Deputy has not noticed, but we now have 28 member states in the European Union and they all have different priorities. In order to get an agreement on the CAP, we had to take account of many of those priorities. What is different about the CAP is that member states have flexibility to design for themselves rural development programmes and take an approach to the CAP that suits their levels of ambition to support the agrifood sector in their countries. We intend on being very ambitious for our rural development programme in Ireland, while at the same time recognising that we have significant budgetary constraints, particularly in 2015 and 2016. My job is to maximise the potential and the spend, within reason, for an ambitious rural development programme that can help us to deliver on the potential of Food Harvest 2020, and to support farmers who do not have the capacity to benefit from that plan, due to the conditions under which they are farming, and so on. We will do that and within the next ten days, as long as we can agreement with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform - I am hopeful that we will - the Deputy will see the figures and be able to debate them.
It is clear that this issue was not a priority with the Minister in the negotiations because he was boasting all the time that he managed to get all his priorities in the CAP package. Therefore, this was not a priority and we accept that. The Minister left himself totally open on this issue. Can he confirm whether he will be able to provide more than 45% co-funding under the Pillar 2 funding in the next round? That is 45% from the Government and 55% from the EU, or better.
With respect, I am not going to confirm anything today until I have concluded an agreement with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform who is working with me on this matter and has been very helpful on it. This issue was a priority under the Irish negotiations and there is nothing to prevent Ireland from designing the kind of rural development programme and the funding we need. We do not need the European Union mandating us to do that. Different countries want different options.
Yes.
The option that Ireland can and will take is an ambitious option. I do not know where the Deputy is coming from when he said that we did not achieve our goals. We did achieve our goals in the negotiations. Ireland now has the capacity to choose the level of co-funding we want and other countries that want to choose lesser co-funding, for whatever reason, if they are in bailouts or whatever, that is for them to decide. I would have thought the Deputy would have welcomed member states making their own decisions on these matters rather than being dictated to by the European Union in a very stringent way in terms of co-funding rates under rural development programmes.
2. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his plans to oppose cuts to quota in forthcoming negotiations for a new EU Common Fisheries Policy; and if he accepts that his acquiescence to the cutting of fishing quotas would damage small coastal communities around our coast. [53196/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe Minister's stated intention is to oppose cuts to quota in the forthcoming negotiations for a new EU Common Fisheries Policy. Does he accept that the proposed cuts, if implemented, will be detrimental to the Irish fishing fleet?
If the Deputy and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will allow me, I would like to use the opportunity to correct the record on something I said a number of weeks ago in the House to Deputy Martin Ferris's colleague, Deputy Caoimhghin Ó Caoláin, where, unintentionally, I misled the House when I suggested in reply to a private notice question that Deputy Ó Caoláin had not contacted me in relation to a specific case involving the special investigations unit. I was wrong in that. I have written to Deputy Ó Caoláin to clarify the issue but I also said that I would use the opportunity the next time I was on my feet in the House to clarify the issue.
In terms of the response to the question, our approach will be as predicted and as we did last year and the year before. I will try to derive the highest commercial return possible from fishing stocks in as sustainable a way as I can. There are some real challenges going into next week's negotiations, particularly in regard to whitefish, off the south coast of Ireland, and on stocks such as whiting and haddock. We also have some challenges in terms of prawns, which is Ireland's most important fishery in value terms, after mackerel but, in social terms, probably Ireland's most important fishery, where there are recommendations for quite dramatic cuts.
We are taking a team of people, including marine scientists from the Marine Institute, to the negotiations. I will attempt to construct arguments for minimising the effect of quota reductions, in other words, minimising those reductions if they have to take place. We have to take account of the state of fish stocks. There is no point in having a short-term popular decision that will significantly damage the health of fish stocks. Having said that, we also need to take account of the fact that we are moving into an entirely new phase when it comes to fishing in Ireland-----
I thank the Minister.
-----whereby we are going to introduce an obligation to land everything the fishermen catch. Therefore, we need to balance the issues. If we simply have dramatic cuts to quotas, particularly for whitefish in mixed fisheries, we will increase the amount of discarding that takes place at a time when we are about to end the practice, through policy. This will be a very complex negotiation about trying to balance the ability to get the Common Fisheries Policy implemented in the next few years while at the same time deriving maximum commercial value within a sustainable plan for fishing in the next year.
I call Deputy Martin Ferris.
There will be some very positive news on this, particularly on the pelagic side but there will also be some challenges on the whitefish side. We will certain do our best for the industry.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Some of the proposals indicate a 34% reduction in the whitefish and prawn fleet in areas where practically all inshore fishing is dependent on it, such as Cloherhead, Howth, Dunmore East, Kilmore Quay, Dingle, Castletownbere and Rossaveal. If that is to be the reduction in the fishermen's intake it would be detrimental from an economic and social perspective for those communities. All of us who live in coastal communities see the value of a reasonable income and the knock on effects in other sectors in that area. We heard a presentation yesterday on the issue and the cuts, if implemented, are frightening.
A question, Deputy, please.
The Minister has our full support to try to ensure these cuts do not come about. Clearly I stress the necessity of ensuring these cuts will not be implemented, as proposed.
I can understand where the Deputy is coming from on this issue. There is much concern in the fishing industry, particularly in the whitefish fleet. Last year and the previous year there was also much concern going into the negotiations and we managed to renegotiate on the back of science a much better deal for fishermen than many had expected.
I would issue a word of caution here. Sometimes people expect the Minister to perform some kind of Houdini act each year and to overturn the science. The negotiations next week will be difficult. In terms of the nephrops - prawn - stock, which is one of our priority stocks, there is a proposal to cut that quota by 24%. In terms of haddock stock in area 7, there is a proposal to cut that stock by 75% and in terms of cod stock, in area 7b-k, there is a proposal to cut it by 33% and in whiting stock a 13% cut has been proposed. These are large amounts.
I thank the Minister.
We are working intensively to prepare for next week's negotiations and put a case together that stands up from a scientific point of view but which can get a better outcome for the fishing industry. We will do everything we can to achieve that objective.
I call Deputy Martin Ferris.
May I come back in again?
Of course. Deputy Ferris has one minute and the Minister has to reply.
The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries works in this area. The Minister has a report from national independent scientists going forward. What is the input of the actual sector itself in the negotiations and in terms of stock density? Does the sector have a direct input? There has always been a difference of opinion between the scientists and those at the coalface in the industry. Coming from that background, I will always argue that the people who have most interest in preserving stocks are those involved in the industry. I am aware there are certain cowboys in the industry but, in general, most people involved in the industry know that it is in their interest to protect the stock. I do not detect anything otherwise from the fishing industry.
I call the Minister for a final reply.
The Deputy is right on his last point. There is a perception among some people who, in my view, do not understand the fishing industry that all fishermen just want to go out and catch as much as they can, and that they will catch whatever they can get away with catching. That is not the case. In recent years we have seen the fishing industry take a very responsible approach towards a number of stocks. The results indicate that herring stock in the Celtic sea is the best example. There has been a dramatic increase and I hope that increase will continue into the future in terms of available quota. There is also the development of the boarfish fishery, of which Ireland has two-thirds. The industry developed that fishery and put its own money into the science around it.
The industry is very progressive in Ireland. Yes, there are some people who are breaking the rules and we need to enforce the rules and hold those people to account. Unfortunately, we have witnessed some of that in recent weeks. That reflects, I suspect, the pressures under which the fishermen are operating.
Absolutely.
It is important to say that but regardless of the pressures we must have a level playing field for everybody. I need to enforce the rules in order to be fair to every fisherman in the same way. One of the proposals - the Deputy expressed concern about this previously - coming into the negotiations is that when stocks are data poor, in other words if we do not have sufficient data to draw proper conclusions, there is a proposal in the case of some stocks to apply an automatic reduction of 20%. That is something I will oppose.
If we are to take the hard decisions to protect stocks on the back of science that suggests we need to do so, that is one matter, but we are certainly not going to ask fishermen to make significant commercial sacrifices by reducing quotas in the absence of science.
3. Deputy Tom Fleming asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will outline his efforts to address the land eligibility problems farmers are facing; the concession he will apply; and the argument he has put to the EU Commissioner to prevent the imposition of retrospective single farm payment penalties on farmers as a result of the land eligibility issue. [53362/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraWill the Minister outline his efforts to address the land eligibility problems farmers are facing, the concession he will apply, and the argument he has put to the EU Commissioner to prevent the imposition of retrospective single farm payment penalties on farmers as a result of the land eligibility issue?
I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. A number of farmers, particularly in the Deputy's county, are concerned about it. We have a problem we need to deal with. Since mid-summer, there has been a change to the way in which mapping is done technically. It allows us to be much more accurate in photographing land parcels across the country. As a consequence of this and the pressure the European Commission is under from external auditors, the Commission is demanding that every country in Europe assess whether payments have been drawn down on land parcels that have been ineligible. Unlike many other countries, Ireland has gone through an extraordinarily detailed process of trying to assess every single land parcel in the country so as to make a judgment on what areas are ineligible for payments. Obviously, we offer farmers an appeals system to test that. We are doing so because we are required to. The alternative is that the Commission would make an assessment of ineligible land in Ireland, multiply its figure probably by five and apply a fine or what is called a disallowance, for which every farmer would have to pay substantially. I cannot and will not allow that.
We have the capacity technologically to proceed accurately. I have no intention of penalising farmers but simply of asking them not to accept payments on land deemed ineligible in 2013. In some limited cases, we have asked farmers to return payments made over the past four years on ineligible land. That is how we minimise the exposure of Irish farming as a whole to penalties that the European Commission would otherwise supply. In case the Deputy thinks this is a bluff, he should consider the penalties that have applied to other countries. In France recently, there was a penalty of €246 million. I am open to correction on that. The United Kingdom and Italy have also received penalties, despite their economic muscle in the European Union. We are trying to minimise the exposure of farmers and we will work with farmers who have a problem to make sure we can put repayment schedules in place for them.
It is totally unacceptable that the Department is now claiming retrospectively on lands that were approved as far back as 2008. What occurred was all done in good faith and on the basis of a good understanding between farmers and farm inspectors. We all know of the very challenging times farmers have experienced in recent years, particularly in the past three because of the weather conditions. What is occurring is imposing further hardship on farmers.
There is mixed land affected, particularly in the south west, which, being next to the western seaboard, bears the brunt of the bad weather coming in from the Atlantic. The mountain terrain breaks the cloud. The Minister will have to examine this seriously and review the penalties being imposed on farmers. They are trying to keep scrub off their land and wipe out the rushes, which is impossible. In many cases, the farmers have receipts. Where they have proof of charges and payments to contractors, it should be taken into account.
It is important to send some very clear messages to farmers. First, we are not asking for any retrospective payments from farmers who have had a big problem. The only payments we decided we would try to reclaim retrospectively this year, in an effort to try to solve the problem, are from some farmers whose ineligible land amounted to less than 3% of their holding. The average farmer in this category has a single farm payment of well over €11,000 and the retrospective payment, in total, is well under €400. Any of the farmers who have a significant problem with ineligible land that comprises more than 3% of their farm will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis next year. If we must put in place longer-term repayment schedules for farmers, we will do so.
I assure the Deputy that we are trying to work through this in as farmer-friendly a way as possible. Anybody who believes we will just put our head in the sand and ignore this issue, thus resulting in the imposition of significant fines and disallowances by the Commission, either does not understand the issue or is kidding himself. The proof of this is in other countries. We have worked with farm organisations on this in some detail. The vast majority of farmers are not affected at all. The percentage of those with a real issue is very much in single figures, and significantly fewer than 1% have a significant issue.
The great majority of affected farmers are family farmers working on poorer land, and many have grazing on commonages. They are the custodians of that land and keep it in as good a condition as possible agriculturally and environmentally.
Let me refer to the duplication of nitrates inspections by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. It is very unfair that two Departments are carrying out overly officious nitrates inspections.
Recently I saw some receipts concerning penalties that were issued without explanation to farmers, particularly young farmers on very modest incomes. They concern financial discipline and modulation. I have tried to receive an explanation and would like the Minister to expand on this. The farmers affected are not even getting a letter, just a receipt. There are very substantial cuts.
If the Deputy is concerned about individual cases, he should let us hear about them and we will consider them. On the broader issue, we have been working overtime since the summer to try to ensure that we can avoid the imposition on Ireland of significant penalties to which every farmer in the country would have to contribute, thus resulting in a quite dramatic reduction in my ability to spend and put schemes together. That is what would happen and what is happening in other countries that have not been able or are not willing to deal with the issue of ineligible land. We are trying to deal with it in a way that asks farmers to pay back, without penalty, only moneys drawn down on land ineligible for those payments. The Department is offering farmers an appeals system, and there is a second appeals system, the fast-track appeal system, external to the Department to ensure farmers feel they are being treated fairly in this instance. If anybody has any suggestion as to how we can be more helpful to farmers, I am all ears. We have worked to try to ensure the arrangement is as acceptable to farmers as possible. If farmers have significant problems with the repayment of money that should not have been drawn down, we will provide for long-term payment schedules to facilitate them.
4. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if the European Union has re-opened pilot investigation 764/09/ENVI; the reasons for same; the possible consequences for Ireland arising from this investigation; if any questions have been raised with his Department in relation to the adequacy of the information provided previously to the EU in relation to this investigation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [53361/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraConcerns have arisen that investigation 764/09/ENVI was reopened because information was withheld or incorrect information was provided by the Department to the European Union. I ask the Minister to clarify the matter.
I hope the Deputy will understand that I am somewhat limited in what I can say in response to his question. It is not worth reading out the official reply because it does not provide any information. I will, however, read out an information note that has been provided. The matter under examination by the European Ombudsman relates to EU pilot case 764/09/ENVI. In this regard, the Department forwarded all relevant material to the European Commission, including material supplied by Inland Fisheries Ireland. In addition, the Commission arranged for Inland Fisheries Ireland to make a direct oral presentation of its position at a meeting with the Commission on 19 December 2011, at which officials from my Department were also present. Following consideration of the scientific facts underpinning the State's control protocols for the management of sea lice, the European Commission closed the case on 11 October 2012. Throughout the process, the Department maintained the closest engagement with the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, the parent Department of Inland Fisheries Ireland. At all times, my Department conducted its activities in an appropriate and efficient manner with due regard for the public interest, which was the Department's primary concern throughout.
It is not appropriate for me to provide any further detail. The Department is preparing a file for consideration by the European Ombudsman and Commission. I am confident both bodies will be satisfied with the file when it is presented. We will have an opportunity to address the issue again when the file has been compiled.
Will the Minister confirm that the case has been reopened and requests for information about the case have been received from the European Union? In view of the reopening of the investigation, will further consideration of the fish farm licence application by Bord Iascaigh Mhara in Galway Bay be suspended until the investigation has been completed?
Two entirely separate issues arise. The first is the way in which Ireland manages its control protocols for sea lice. In my view, we do so to a very high standard. The second is a series of applications for aquaculture licences, which includes shellfish and salmon farm licences, and this is not confined to the application on which the Deputy continually focuses because it is politically heated. Legally, I may not arbitrarily decide to suspend a licensing process. Anyone may make an application for an aquaculture licence and all such applications are subject to a process. I do not have the power, nor do I intend, to suspend any application processes.
The Department will do what is required by the Commission to provide clarity on this issue. We will proceed in a proper, independent and rigorous manner to assess all outstanding aquaculture licence applications. The specific licence to which the Deputy refers has been part of a public process. I do not yet have a detailed file on my desk setting out recommendations in that case. I expect to receive a file in the not too distant future, at which point I will be in a position to make a balanced judgment on the application. Until then, the less said about the application, the better.
The Minister of State, Deputy Tom Hayes, who is seated beside the Minister, will be able to explain to him that forestry planting applications for grants have been held up by the Department pending the completion of work by the National Parks and Wildlife Service on planting permissions. Given that the Department is holding up applications in another area, it is possible for it do so in this case. I will rephrase my earlier question. Is it intended to suspend further consideration of or decisions on salmon farm applications pending the finalisation of the case to which I refer, which is entirely related to sea lice in farm salmon?
I expect this case to be clarified and closed in the next six or eight weeks and it is highly unlikely that I will make a decision on the licensing of any salmon farm in that period. As a former member of Cabinet, Deputy Ó Cuív will understand, or at least should understand, the legalities surrounding licensing processes and where responsibility and legal obligations lie. We are in the middle of a series of licensing applications for various aquaculture projects, both fin fish and shellfish farming. The applicants have a right to due process and they will receive due process. People who have made objections or commented during the consultation process also have a right to due process and are entitled to be heard. That process is under way. This is a particular issue on which we must provide clarity to the Commission. I am confident that when we provide such clarity, the Commission will be satisfied with the result.
5. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the salmon farm proposed for the Aran Islands would have a capacity of 15,000 tonnes and that this size would make it the largest such facility in Europe and more than seven times bigger than the largest facility in Scotland which has a 2,000 tonne capacity. [53197/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraThis question also relates to the licence application for a salmon farm off the Aran Islands. It is proposed that the facility will have a capacity of 15,000 tonnes, making it the largest salmon farm in Europe and more than seven times the size of the largest salmon farm in Scotland. I ask the Minister to make a statement on the matter, including the issues raised by many people in respect of size.
I am fully aware of what is proposed in the project in question. The proposal relates to a new type of salmon farming which would involve moving salmon cages further offshore into much deeper water. Based on this approach, it is proposed to allow larger-scale salmon farming to take place. The idea behind this type of salmon farming is to move projects out of special areas of conservation and Natura areas into open waters, albeit within reason as some degree of shelter is required. That is the policy thinking behind the proposal from the applicant's point of view.
My job is to assess whether the proposal holds up from a scientific, environmental and commercial point of view. I must also consider weather factors such as exposure to the elements on the west coast. I rely heavily on the scientists in my Department and the Marine Institute, with which my Department is linked, who are working hard on this issue. The process is taking time because they have not dealt with such an application previously. I am confident that when I receive a file and recommendation, the Department will be able to make a balanced judgment on whether the proposal is appropriate or needs to be downsized or rejected.
While the proposed salmon farm is larger than projects elsewhere in Europe, we have some large projects off the west coast. The salmon farm off Clare Island, for instance, is of a significant scale. I accept, however, that this proposal is bigger, bolder and more ambitious than anything we have seen previously. As the person with the legal responsibility to make a balanced judgment on whether to grant the licence, my job will be to approve or amend the licence and I will do so when I have received sufficient information to make an informed judgment. If people are not satisfied with my judgment, an independent appeals board will subsequently assess the matter.
I tabled this question following a visit to Scotland in recent weeks by members of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, including Deputy Ó Cuív and me.
We met representatives of the industry and people involved in the scientific and political aspects of it. They expressed amazement of the proposed size of the farm off the coast of Galway and the weather and environmental factors. They asked about the consequence of a mass escape from the farm and the risks of sea lice. Compared with Ireland, Scotland has a huge farmed salmon industry over a total area of 400 hectares. I do not have the exact figures for the Galway proposal but it will be of a huge scale. Many of us are concerned about what could happen and two State agencies are giving different vibes on the matter.
I do not think people should be criticised for ambition. If this project is doable, we have an obligation to consider it. If it does not make sense from an environmental or management perspective or because of sea lice or other technical issues, I will not allow it to proceed. A high bar must be crossed to get a licence for a project of this scale, or anything around salmon farming, because we have a gold-plated licensing system for aquaculture.
In regard to the exposure, I understand the benchmark for levels of exposure is the Clare Island site. The salmon farm there is well run and is considered to have levels of exposure with which we could work. Other sites in open water with the same or lower levels of exposure have been explored.
I call Deputy Ferris.
On the final point-----
I am trying to make time for other Deputies.
Nobody is criticising ambition or is opposed to developing the best possible industry. Those of us who come from coastal communities in the west would love to see something working at its maximum potential. My concern is that the presentation from Bord Iascaigh Mhara, which was excellent, was at odds with the position taken by another State agency. The maximum size in Scotland is 2,000 tonnes but we are proposing 15,000 tonnes. As elected representatives, we have an obligation to protect what is left of wild salmon. Some of the salmon coming up the rivers in Scotland have no historical connection to their spawning grounds. The Scottish experts were unable to explain that. Some of the salmon may have arrived due to cross-contamination or escapes. These issues must be taken into account.
I accept the Deputy has raised genuine concerns, which I share and which is why we must be rigorous in our assessment of proposals of this nature. It is important to put Scotland in context. Scotland may not have farms that produce more than 2,000 tonnes but it produces 140,000 tonnes of salmon per year. Ireland produces 12,000 tonnes. It may be in Scotland's commercial interest not to have significant development in Ireland. Its industry is growing rapidly, with approximately 40 cages put into the water this year. When one adds up all the farms, many of which are located close to each other, there is a significant industry. We have a relatively small industry and we are looking for the most sustainable ways to develop it. Perhaps this licence is not the way to go but we will have to await the assessment. I am sure we will have many more debates on the issue when I get an opportunity to make an informed decision on the licence. We have an obligation to keep an open mind both to the criticisms and to those promoting the project. I certainly have an open mind and will make an informed choice when I see the science behind it.
