Other Questions
6. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will review his Department's ruling in January 2014 which restricts knackeries from bringing fallen animals aged more than 48 months to a rendering plant outside a 125 km zone. [13208/14]
Amharc ar fhreagraI presume the Minister is aware of the 125 km zone and the effect it is having on farmers with fallen animals. I ask the Minister to revisit the directive and revert to the previous situation because it is causing undue hardship.
The TSE fallen animal subsidy scheme ensures primarily that fallen bovine animals over 48 months, which must be BSE-tested in accordance with EU legislation, are disposed of in accordance with all animal, public health and environmental regulations. As the Deputy will be aware the scheme is an integral part of the infrastructure underpinning Ireland’s successful livestock and meat processing industries, which had an estimated combined export value of almost €3 billion in 2012.
The operation of the subsidy scheme has been examined in my Department and a number of changes have been introduced. These include enhanced compliance provisions and putting some limits on the distance material can be carried while maintaining choice. This examination took into account a number of factors, including budgetary considerations; TSE testing requirements; animal by-product regulations; the need to maintain competition; and the need for an adequate collection and disposal infrastructure. The importance of having adequate rendering capacity especially in the event of a serious class A disease outbreak was given high priority in the examination of the scheme.
It is important to note that the rates payable under the scheme have not changed. The rendering and disposal costs of fallen cattle over 48 months in category 1 plants are fully covered by the scheme and the collection charge to the farmer is still capped at €54.03, including VAT. Bovines under 48 months are outside the remit of the subsidy scheme, and their collection and rendering is a matter for commercial arrangement.
I have 25 seconds left and am determined to start complying with the rules. There is a problem and the Deputy is right to raise it, as have farm organisations. Since we introduced these changes farmers are telling me they are being charged more for the rendering of their animals. If the changes we made for all the right reasons are being abused by organisations operating rendering systems by increasing their charges, that is not acceptable and we will considering changing again and reverting to the previous system, which would not be good in terms of overall competition and availability for farmers.
The Minister should look at it again. Restricting fallen cattle aged more than 48 months to a 125 km zone is resulting in collaboration between knackeries in the area to fix the price due to a lack of competition. Those living in Border areas used to be able to take their fallen animals across the Border and it was far cheaper for them. I will ask the farming organisation that contacted me to supply the Minister with the information he requires.
I have spoken to them about this and we have made it clear why we made the changes we did. We had good reason to do that. There was concern that there would be a significant reduction in the number of rendering facilities which would not have been good for Ireland particularly if that location was not even in the State. Of course we want competition but we also want to ensure there are plenty of players in the system so that if we had a significant outbreak, we would have multiple options in terms of rendering facilities. We introduced the distance limits primarily for biosecurity reasons, but we ensured that within that every farmer would have at least two options in terms of competition on price. If there is evidence that that competition is not functioning and the opposite is happening, we need to review that. I have sent a very clear signal to the organisations concerned that it is not acceptable to have a significant price increase as a result of the changes here. We will review it unless that changes.
7. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will support the Irish Seal Sanctuary and protect wildlife in captivity by assisting it in the retiring and rehoming of seals currently being used in circuses. [10555/14]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe Irish Seal Sanctuary is of the view that life at a circus is not suitable for a marine mammal and is seeking support to rehome seals in circuses.
What are the Minister's views on that and what assistance can he provide?
I was not sure the circus issue would arise. I do not have a strong view on this, but I will think about it now that the Deputy has raised it. I understood the Deputy was asking about the assistance we are giving the Irish Seal Sanctuary from a funding point of view.
The Irish Seal Sanctuary has received funding in the past from the Department of the order of €10,000 in each of the years from 2007 to 2011, amounting to a total of €50,000. The Irish Seal Sanctuary did not submit an application for funding in 2012 from the ex gratia funding available for animal welfare organisations. We have significantly increased that funding by approximately 50% in the last two years. I would like to be of assistance to the Irish Seal Sanctuary, if I can be, but it must write to me and explain exactly what it needs.
The issue raised by the Deputy of whether seals should be circus animals is a separate matter. Clearly, I am anxious to be helpful in terms of the functioning of the Irish Seal Sanctuary and the role it plays for our seal population from a welfare point of view, including with funding. However, it must apply, as other organisations do, for ex gratia payments or assistance, or at least talk to me if there is an issue on which I can be helpful. I will certainly try to be helpful.
I do not know why the Minister did not expect the circuses to be raised. While there are two separate issues, the question was about the specific issue of assisting seals to be retired and rehomed from circus facilities. This practice has already been ceased by Fossetts Circus and Duffy's Circus has been approached by members of the Irish Seal Sanctuary with a view to having the circus work with them to get seals out of circuses and retired and rehomed.
I accept the Minister's statement that the Irish Seal Sanctuary has not asked him for assistance. He said its representatives should apply to him and he would meet them. If that is the case, I am glad to hear it and I am sure they will take that step.
The reality is that a seal in a circus, a marine athlete held in confinement in a completely unnatural environment, is wrong. I respect the fact that the Minister has brought forward animal welfare legislation, but it is not enough. However, the Minister said moneys might be available and that he will work with the sanctuary.
There is another question, which I tried to put on the agenda with the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Deenihan. It is entirely inappropriate that the Arts Council funds circuses which use wildlife. My question on this issue has not been dealt with by that Minister in any format. This question was moved to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, but somebody must be accountable for public moneys being used to promote a cruel activity.
It is probably no secret that I am not a fan of animals in circuses, but that does not mean I will outlaw it. This is an animal welfare issue that the Deputy has raised. Of course, I will meet with representatives of the Irish Seal Sanctuary and we can be helpful to them in terms of funding through ex gratia payments, as we are with many other animal welfare organisations. We spend almost €2 million per year on animal welfare organisations. It is not for funding for the organisations but is essentially a top-up fund through ex gratia payments to support them in their activities. This year we have prioritised horse welfare for obvious reasons, and the Deputy will be familiar with those. This is an area that I will happily be helpful on if that is possible. I will also happily meet the Deputy with the Irish Seal Sanctuary, if she wishes.
I am sorry I did not specifically refer to circuses in my response. I should have because it was mentioned in the Deputy's question. However, I will certainly follow up on the matter in more detail if the Deputy wishes.
I thank the Minister.
8. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the extent to which he continues to use his influence within the European Union in the context of any EU-US trade discussions with a view to ensuring the future of the agrifood sector in this country and throughout Europe; if initial indications in this regard are reassuring in the context of the WTO; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13210/14]
Amharc ar fhreagraThis question relates to the need for vigilance in any negotiations between the EU and the US in the context of the World Trade Organisation, WTO, in the aftermath of the very successful deal on the agriculture sector in Europe which was worked out by the Minister during the Irish EU Presidency. There is a need to make provision to ensure that it is not eroded subsequently in any further negotiations.
It is one of the priorities of this Government to use our links at EU level to engage actively with the EU institutions and other member states to ensure that EU policies on bilateral and multilateral trade agreements do not place the Irish agri-food sector at a competitive disadvantage. Since I took office in 2011, I have proactively pursued this agenda, most recently at meetings of the EU Council of Agriculture Ministers in Brussels. At the February meeting of the Council, I asked the Greek Presidency to continue the practice of regular updates on the agricultural aspects of international trade negotiations. Since then there has been a good exchange at senior official level and last Monday there was a substantive discussion around the Council table on the current negotiations under way.
As a small trading nation, we depend on trade to drive our economy and have much to gain from free trade agreements. In that respect we have substantial offensive interests in the agreements being negotiated with the United States and also with Japan, Thailand and Vietnam. We have defensive interests too, related primarily to our beef sector. Our strategy is to push hard for agreements that balance these offensive interests with our defensive ones.
I know the Deputy has a particular interest in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, and the negotiations taking place between the European Union and the United States. We have much to gain from a transatlantic free trade agreement. We have an extraordinarily strong relationship with the US economy, due to the number of multinationals in this country. We also wish to be able to access its markets for food and drink and we are, I hope, close to accessing its markets for beef.
However, we have a defensive interest too. A huge amount of beef is produced in the United States and we must ensure a number of things happen. First and foremost, we must ensure that hormone free beef remains the food of European consumers. That is a point on which we will continue to insist, as well as limiting any quotas that might be offered to the United States in terms of accessing EU markets for beef.
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. Will it be a priority of the Minister and his EU colleagues to ensure that the agrifood industry is not in any way disadvantaged to facilitate other areas of trade, for example, with regard to engineering, technology and so forth, or to improve the bargaining position of other sectors at the expense of the agri-food sector?
This is an ongoing issue. With regard to agrifood, we have offensive interests too. We want to access markets. We export 85% of all the agri-food and drink products we produce, so it is in Ireland's interest to have a platform for international trade that is as wide as possible. However, we have some concerns. Ireland is, effectively, the only large exporter of beef in the European Union. It is the biggest exporter of beef by miles. In fact, Ireland is the fourth largest beef exporter in the world, which is extraordinary for a small country. Irish beef is exported primarily to EU markets. If we allow beef into the EU from South America, Canada, the US and other parts of the world, there will be increased competition and that is a worry for the beef sector. We are seeking to limit that as much as we can. We tried to do it in the agreement with Canada, which has now been concluded. We successfully and very significantly reduced the beef quota that was originally on offer and we will try to do the same with Mercosur and the United States.
We have a very competitive and good beef industry but we are anxious to ensure there is no unfair competition in terms of the standards by which beef is produced outside the European Union, particularly with regard to hormone usage. We will be insistent on that and, so far, the Commission has been very supportive of the Irish position in that regard.
I again thank the Minister. I have a further question regarding husbandry, production, management, traceability and hygiene. We can rely on procedures in that regard being enforced in the EU.
Will the same standards that apply here and in the European Union be applied to imports?
This is the level playing field question, which is a fair one to ask. We require farmers in the European Union to produce food under very tight regulation. As a result, we also pay them for that through the CAP in the form of direct payments. That is the deal. European farmers have to produce food to a very high standard in terms of traceability, husbandry, controls, inspection and so on and taxpayers have to pay for that. However, we also need to ensure that if we are importing food from other parts of the world that we insist on the same standards in order to protect consumers. That is what they demand and that should be central to our negotiations concerning food, which is very different from other products such as cars, services and so on. When one is dealing with food, one is dealing with issues such as food safety, animal husbandry, genetic modification, hormone usage and so on. In Ireland we have always insisted on a level playing field. We think that our industry can compete with anyone in the world, as long as the same standards apply here as elsewhere. That is very much part of the negotiations.
9. Deputy Seán Kyne asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine further to Parliamentary Question No. 612 of 25 February 2014, the names and owners of the ten rendering plants approved by his Department; if these plants are owned by the same person; his views on whether there is sufficient competition in the disposal of offal; if he has concerns regarding anti-competitive behaviour; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13945/14]
Amharc ar fhreagraMy question asks that the Minister provide the names of the owners of the ten rendering plants approved by his Department and to indicate whether these plants are owned by the same individuals. I also ask the Minister if he believes there is sufficient competition within the sector.
My Department approves and supervises the operation of rendering plants under the terms of the EU Animal By-Products, ABP, Regulation, (EC) 1069/2009. Such plants are approved to handle different classes of animal by-products, with category three being low risk material and category one being higher risk. There are five category three and five category one approved plants in the State at present.
With the exception of fallen animals collected and disposed of under the TSE subsidy scheme, which my Department operates to facilitate testing of bovines over 48 months as required by EU regulations, the rendering of material from meat plants and of fallen animal material is a matter for commercial arrangement. While my Department supervises the operation of such plants to ensure compliance with EU rules on animal by-products, it has no role regarding their ownership or commercial operations. If the Deputy has any specific information indicating possible breaches of competition rules he should pass it on to the relevant authorities.
The following are the details of the ten rendering plants approved by my Department: Waterford Proteins has a facility in Ferrybank, County Waterford; the Munster Proteins facility is in Cahir, County Tipperary; College Proteins is located in Nobber, County Meath; Farragh Proteins has a plant in Count Cavan; Dublin Proteins has two plants in County Wicklow; Slaney Proteins has a plant in County Wexford; Western Proteins has a plant in County Mayo; the SRCL plant is in Kylemore, County Dublin; and United Fish Industries runs a plant in Killybegs, County Donegal. As far as I am aware, these companies are in different ownership but if the Deputy has more information in that regard, I will try to be helpful on the matter.
I thank the Minister for his reply. The concern that I have heard expressed often in farming and trade circles - perhaps it is insinuation rather than fact - is that the number of companies involved in rendering is quite small and that there may be some links between them. Again, I am not sure if that is true but it is definitely a concern within the trade. It has been argued to me that because of this, such companies are able to tell the factories to drop their prices or they will not take offal and dispose of it. I asked for the list of companies involved so that the information is out in the open and if there is a connection between the companies, that can be proven. The concern I raise relates to competition and for that reason, it is important to put the company names on the record so that people can be confident that they are not connected.
There are huge concerns about the concentration of ownership within the beef industry. In view of this, would the Minister be in favour of the introduction of a beef industry regulator, as is the case with other industries which are highly concentrated in terms of ownership?
I will respond to Deputy Kyne's point before dealing with the issue raised by Deputy Ó Cuív. I have information on the associations which own the aforementioned companies which might be of use to the Deputy. Munster Proteins and Waterford Proteins are owned by the ABP Group; Dublin Proteins, which runs two facilities, is owned by the Ronan Group; Slaney Proteins is owned by Slaney Foods International; Western Proteins is owned by Dawn Meats; SRCL is part of the Stericycle Group; and United Fish Industries is a subsidiary of Welcon Invest AS. There is different ownership here. People talk all of the time about some kind of cartel operating in the beef industry but all I can say, based on my own experience, is that there is a lot of competition between the various beef companies. Companies like Dawn Meats, Kepak, ABP and so forth are in intensive competition with each other in terms of the markets they supply. There is also a host of other, smaller companies involved in the industry such as Kildare Chilling, Slaney Meats and so forth. We produce a lot of meat in Ireland, far more than our own market could support. We export huge volumes of meat and companies have been built on the back of those exports. I believe there is competition in the industry, although that might not be a popular thing to say. If there is any evidence to suggest that anything else is occurring in the marketplace, I would like to hear about it and will follow up on it.
I do not think we should put a beef regulator in place, independent of the Government, because that would suggest that there is something seriously wrong here. I am not sure that there is any evidence to support that suggestion. At the moment we have a very successful beef industry in Ireland which we are looking to build on further. If there is any evidence to suggest that there is something fundamentally wrong in terms of the structures or dominance within the market, the Competition Authority can investigate that. Let us not start raising concerns about the industry here without having some evidence to back them up.
10. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the reason the scheme of assistance for pot fishermen is capped at 50 pots for boats under 12 m, rather than 100 pots as is the case for 12 to 15 m boats in view of the fact that the majority of vessels affected by recent events are under 10 m in length; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13223/14]
Amharc ar fhreagraMy question refers to the fact that the smaller fishermen who work from the coastline out to the six-mile limit are being penalised because their boats are too small, which seems unfair, given that they are in most need of the Minister's help. I ask him to give his views on the matter.
Deputy Wallace has raised a point that fishermen have also raised with me. I asked BIM to put together a scheme that could help inshore fishermen who have lost lobster pots, crab pots and so on. The intention was that the Department would pay 40% of the replacement costs. BIM representatives came back to me with a proposal. They asked me how much money was available and I told them the budget was €1.5 million. I am not getting any extra money from the Exchequer for this but have to take money from other areas in my Department, unlike the situation with the piers and harbours fund, for which we are getting money through a Supplementary Estimate. At the moment, we are committing €1.5 million to this sector. We then had to try to prioritise within the sector. BIM made the straightforward recommendation that generally bigger boats have more pots. That is why we said that we would limit the aid to 50 pots for boats under 12 m and 100 pots for vessels under 15 m, which I thought was reasonable. However, when we go through the initial application of this scheme, if we have not spent the full amount we will look at reallocating the remaining funds in certain cases.
It is too early to say if that will happen, but we have committed to a certain scheme. The reasoning behind it is that, generally, larger boats have more pots; therefore, we wanted to give them access to more funding as in all likelihood they would have lost more pots. That is the rationale behind the decision. There is no hidden reason for it. We thought this was a straightforward way to go, but, obviously, we will re-evaluate the matter once the initial funds have been allocated.
Fishing boats between 12 m and 15 m are practically non-existent in Wexford. The fishermen who got on to me reckon there are 50 boats working inshore, but only one of them is between 12 m and 15 m. Most of the 12 m to 15 m fishing boats work off County Donegal. However, the fishermen who have suffered the most are those with smaller vessels. They claim they have lost between 200 and 300 pots, but they will only be eligible to have 50 replaced. These are the guys who most need the Department’s help. Will the Minister examine this issue again to maximise the potential to help those who most need the Department’s help? The smaller boats in the Wexford area were the worst affected by the recent storms.
I have got some feedback and know most of the boats in Wexford are smaller. We will re-evaluate the scheme, but we cannot change it because it is in the process of being applied. I cannot change any scheme midstream. If there are moneys left over, we will look at how best we can spend them to the best possible effect. My objective is to help as many people as possible. There are many onshore fishermen who are in real difficulty after the winter storms. Many of them have lost a lot of gear and I am looking to help them to replace it. However, I only have a limited amount of money to spend and I am trying to spread it thinly across the sector. If the €1.5 million allocated for the scheme is not fully spent, we will look at how we can reallocate it as fairly as possible. I will take on board what the Deputy said in that regard.
I realise the Minister has a limited amount to spend and that €1.5 million will not go far among the many fishermen affected. Will he, however, prioritise giving the maximum help to those who most need it, namely, the smaller guys? It looks to me that the guy who is better off with his larger boat and who can probably better take the knock is getting more help than the guy with the smaller boat, the one who suffered the most in the storms. The Minister has made the point that he has decided what moneys will be distributed. Obviously, there will be no money left over from the initial allocation; therefore, I appeal for the application of fairness. Without a shadow of doubt, the bigger one is, the more power and influence one has the greater the chance of getting a fair deal. The smaller one is, the more challenging it is. Will the Minister seek to bring more fairness to the scheme?
The Deputy has made his point.
There are plenty of owners of boats between 12 m and 15 m in length who are in difficulty too following the storms. The problems are not solely confined to boats under 12 m. I would like to have much more to spend in this sector. We are examining broader actions we can take to help the inshore sector, which is not before time either, but I only have €1.5 million to spend. We will see the existing scheme, which is appropriate, through and if we have money left over, we will look at how we can allocate it as fairly as we can to those who need it most.
11. Deputy Seán Kyne asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the negotiations that have taken place between his Department and the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht regarding the implementation of the commonage review; if liaison committees are proposed for the shareholders of each commonage in conjunction with his Department, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and farm organisations; the timescale for the implementation; if he acknowledges that every commonage requires a different plan; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13946/14]
Amharc ar fhreagraWill the Minister outline the negotiations that have taken place between his Department and the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht on the implementation of the commonage review? Have liaison committees been set up for discussions between the shareholders in each commonage in conjunction with his Department, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and farm organisations?
This is an ongoing process about which I spoken to the Deputy on several occasions. This is a sensitive issue as there are thousands of commonages across the country. We have a new commonage framework programme that needs to be implemented in partnership with the farmers in question and the National Parks and Wildlife Service which has a role to ensure commonages are farmed appropriately. If they are overgrazed, stocking rates should be reduced, while if they are undergrazed, which is the case in respect of much commonage land, stocking rates need to be increased. The complication arises if multiple farmers are farming the same commonage as one then has to get agreement from a majority of them. If necessary, we will go commonage by commonage and sit down at local meetings to bring people on board with the scheme. Farmers will not receive an instruction on the programme from me by letter and it will not be introduced by enforcement. We have had 18 months of discussions to see how best we can do this with farming organisations and the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht to introduce the programme in as sensible and practical as a way to get the right result both for farmers and the environment. The Deputy will see a partnership between farming organisations and my Department to get it right.
When will the liaison with farmers start? There is concern among the farmers in question in advance of next year about the GLAS, green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, and stocking rates. I appreciate the Minister’s letter last week to allow farmers to qualify for the disadvantaged areas scheme within certain environmentally restricted schemes in Connemara and County Mayo. There are concerns, however, in commonage areas as to when the discussions will take place and when a solution will be finally implemented in order that the farmers in question will know where they are going.
The important point is that the European Commission sees progress in this area. There has been progress as the liaison process is under way, but there will be difficult commonage areas that will require local public meetings to be held. We are planning that structure with the farming organisations in order that it can be rolled out over time. Implementation of the new commonage framework proposals will not happen overnight, as the Commission will understand. Most of the commonages will sort themselves out, but there will be potential problem areas in the Deputy’s county which will have to be dealt with sensitively.
