Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is on the supply reduction measure. The €150 million scheme for Europe was not ring-fenced for an individual producer. It appears there may be difficulty in having a second and third tranche, as envisaged by the Commission. With the level of interest in the first tranche, it may utilise the full space and there may not be a second tranche. That remains a Commission decision. We know the level of interest in Ireland and it looks as if that is the envisaged figure.

A number of members have raised the sheep scheme. That was constructed in consultation with the farm organisations. I personally met representatives of the Irish Farmers Association, the Irish Creamery and Milk Suppliers Association, the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers and Macra na Féirme. My officials subsequently had very detailed discussions about the detail of the scheme. It is €25 million and, as Deputy Penrose has alluded to, if one does the maths on the number of ewes, it works out approximately as a payment of €10 per ewe. The EU requirement is for a quid pro quofor the €10 and there must be an equivalence in effort. We have been trying to design a scheme that meets the EU requirement but takes into account the various husbandry practices, both for lowland and hill sheep farmers. We have a reasonable scheme and we await EU approval. The ambition is to have applications invited for early 2017, with payment in the same year.

There will be a menu of options. If the four or five star ram does not suit a particular need, there are other options, such as scanning. We have put a suite of measures to the Commission and we hope they will all stack up to the scrutiny that will be applied. They have been constructed in consultation with the farm organisations. Every farmer will be given a menu from which he or she may choose elements that will suit.

Deputy McConalogue asked about aquaculture licences. I am aware of the inordinate delays with these and we have discussed the issue previously, as Deputy Pringle raised the matter as well. It was raised with me yesterday in Killybegs. There is a legal background to this in terms of court findings against the State and the wriggle room we were given in order to get our house in order. We are working through a very considerable task of getting assessment done in all the bays. At the end of the exercise, the objective for the seafood sector is surely to get the industry somewhere near its potential. We are at an abysmally low level in what we achieve. The legal issue with the Commission arose from our non-compliance with the habitats and birds directive but apart from that I have committed to establishing a review of the aquaculture licensing system here, as it takes an extraordinarily long time. I am familiar with one case where the licence was applied for in 2011 but the operation is still not off the ground; the licence was granted but the appeals process is ongoing. The issue is very complex. We have approximately 10,000 tonnes or 11,000 tonnes of farmed fish but Scotland produces approximately 100,000 tonnes and the Norwegians produce more than 1 million tonnes. That is an indication of how far behind the curve we are. If could get our house in order in dealing with the interests in the matter, we could have a significant economic benefit from it.

Deputy Penrose raised two matters generally relating to the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP.

One was on the single farm payment and "corporate farmers", as he described them. This issue was the subject of much debate when the current CAP was being put in place. We sought a lower cap but, unfortunately, the Commission was having none of it. The Deputy would have seen figures in newspapers recently that included CAP and greening. There is a cap of €150,000 on single farm payments, which is significantly lower than was previously allowed. A process is under way on convergence, whereby those who have high per hectare payments are moving back towards an average and those with lower payments are moving up. This is the first attempt at some modicum of fairness and is a good start. There are casualties in the process, but it has been a step in the right direction.

We have lodged an appeal in the O'Connor case on foot of legal advice. It raises interesting questions for which the Deputy would understand the rationale. For example, the finding suggested that we should even pay in respect of ineligible land regardless of EU regulations prohibiting that. There are other aspects of the finding that we are conscious of and have reflected on and that have resulted in some change in our practices, but the court ruling is the subject of an appeal.