Aindrias Moynihan
Question:6. Deputy Aindrias Moynihan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the progress he has made regarding reviewing the appeals process for farmers. [28012/17]
Other Questions
Agriculture Scheme Appeals
I also wish the Minister of State, Deputy Doyle, the best of luck following his well-deserved reappointment.
What progress has the Department made in the review of the appeals process for farmers? As some of the questions have already outlined, there are pressures on farmers' incomes. Unfortunately, the single farm payment represents a huge proportion of many farmers' incomes. The appeals process is vital for farmers who suffer penalties. Could the Minister outline the progress that has been made on that?
The delivery of the commitment under the Programme for Government is progressing. The Deputy will be aware that the commitment is to review the Agriculture Appeals Act 2001 “to ensure the independence and efficiency of the Office in dealing with appeals from farmers”.
The appeals process is governed by the Agriculture Appeals Act 2001 and Agriculture Appeals Regulations 2002. There are distinct and specific statutory functions assigned to the officials delivering the appeals service which require the appeals officers and the director under law to be independent in the performance of their functions when making determinations on appeals made by affected persons against decisions taken by the Department. The legislation also requires appeals officers to have regard to the principles of natural justice and to comply with the terms and conditions and EU regulations applying to the Department schemes. I am advised by the director of agriculture appeals that appeals officers are fully aware of their legal obligations.
The agriculture appeals service is implemented through a separate executive office with its own premises and staff which operates independently of the Department. The functioning of the office is overseen by the director of agriculture appeals.
In regard to the outcome of appeals, in 2016 the outcome of all cases closed in that year was that 45% of cases were disallowed and 41% allowed, partially allowed or revised by the Department, the balance being withdrawn or invalid.
As an initial step in the review, the director of agriculture appeals has completed an assessment of the existing appeals service arrangements with a view to identifying any matters that might be given consideration when a formal review of the operations of her office commences.
The next step will be to establish a steering committee to oversee the delivery of the commitment. The committee will include independent experts. The committee will consider the issues identified by the director and any other relevant matters and will also receive input from the management services division of my Department, which provides analysis and advice on organisational development, business process improvement, resource deployment and change management. It is anticipated that the committee will also invite stakeholder input to the process.
I am informed that the review will be completed by the end of this year.
The Minister of State has given me a very comprehensive answer. One word on which I want to hone in is "independence". Farmers' confidence in this system is paramount as well as the independence of the appeals process. The fact that the appeals office is staffed entirely by former Department of Agriculture staff is undermining farmers' confidence in the system. If we are to restore farmers' confidence in the appeals process, we need proper independence. That means staff other than former Department of Agriculture staff would be employed in the appeals office. A figure was given of roughly 40% success rate for appeals. That is well and good and I am not arguing with it but that means that 60% have failed. It is a question of farmers' confidence in the system. If farmers see that it is former Department of Agriculture staff who are manning these appeals offices, it undermines their confidence in the system. If this review is to restore farmer confidence, the staff employed in the appeals office must be the first item on the agenda.
It is not 60%. I think the statistic was 45% are refused, or disallowed, and 41% were allowed. Which is that 86% or the remainder are invalid or withdrawn. So it is a little less than 50% that are allowed.
It is 60%.
Of the applications, but some applications are invalid or withdrawn. I do not want to pre-empt what the final review will say. The Deputy has made a specific point here that the personnel who occupy the appeals office should not be former staff. I am not sure that I would agree that is necessary that the entire appeals office should not have anyone with the experience. That is my opinion, there has to be a healthy mix. Again, I cannot pre-empt the steering committee and the implementation of the review's recommendations and actions will be guided as I outlined in my opening statement.
I understand that it would be of benefit to have staff who understand the application system but some people who sit on the appeals process should not be former members of the Department. In my county, we have had very high-profile cases where people have suffered 100% penalties. They have gone into the judicial system. That should never have to happen. In a working appeals system, that should never have to happen. In a popular appeals process that worked properly, people would not have to resort to the courts; that is a last resort. I accept that people from the Department might be involved in the process to provide background knowledge but when a farmer goes before an appeals body, the least he can expect is that a majority of those there would not have previously been members of staff in the Department. Good work is being done by the appeals process but the confidence of farmers in it is paramount and I appeal to the Minister to keep that at the top of his agenda when this process is being reviewed.
I said that the steering committee which is being established will include independent experts to guide the recommendations through. I am not sure if one of the things which has been fed-in has been along those lines but fundamentally it is about the independence of the office and using independent experts from outside of the Department's cohort, which reflects the Deputy's point. Hopefully they will take it on board.
Live Exports
Thomas P. Broughan
Question:7. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if his officials are liaising with animal welfare charities regarding reports of greyhounds being exported to China and Pakistan; the measures he is implementing to halt these exports; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27969/17]
I also wish to be associated with the good wishes expressed towards Deputy Doyle on his reappointment. It is well merited.
Some months ago, his colleague, the Minister, Deputy Creed, told me that three greyhounds were exported to Argentina in 2013, 33 in 2014, 3 in 2015 and 7 in 2016, even though greyhound racing has ceased in Argentina. He also said that no greyhounds were exported direct from Ireland to Pakistan during 2016. There are persistent rumours that those exports are taking place. Previously, the Minister mentioned the EU TRACES system which covers the export of animals throughout the European Union. Nevertheless, rumours persist that there are significant exports to Pakistan, where the animal welfare regime is deplorable.
Will the Minister be adopting the Welfare of Greyhounds (Amendment) Bill, a Bill which I myself sponsored, and including it in the Government's legislation?
I thank the Deputy for his kind words.
My Department has a close working relationship with welfare charities on all aspects of animal welfare. The Department has in the past met with the International Greyhound Forum, which includes members of Dogs Trust and the ISPCA, to discuss the issue of greyhound exports. Information received to date from my Department's local offices indicates that no greyhounds have been exported directly from Ireland to China or Pakistan to date this year, and nine greyhounds were exported directly from Ireland to China in 2016.
My Department has access to the figures for exports of dogs from Ireland to other EU member states through the European Commission's trade control and expert system, TRACES. It does not have figures for the movements of dogs that are, for example, exported to the UK, the most significant destination for Irish dogs, and subsequently exported to a third country.
I am aware that the Deputy has introduced a Private Members' Bill on the subject of the export of greyhounds and to respond directly to the Deputy's query, my Department officials are examining the Bill. Once animal health and welfare standards, set by EU law for trade within the EU, are met, dogs, including greyhounds, may be exported. Exporters are required to comply with EU law on the protection of animals during transport. The Irish Greyhound Board advises all owners of greyhounds to only export to destinations that provide the expected levels of greyhound care and management as defined in its code of practice. We fully endorse this view.
The Minister of State will remember that last year, around the time the Government was formed, there was a major public outcry over the export of three Irish greyhounds to Macau, where they would have been raced in the infamous Canidrome, where dogs are effectively raced to death. Subsequently, a few dozen Irish dogs were returned to Ireland when the transport authorities in the UK stopped those who were carrying them. There is no adoption or protection system in Macau or in China generally but there has been much evidence regarding the matter.
Constituents of mine have been in contact with me about persistent reports of exports to Pakistan. Videos have been uploaded on social media and so on showing animals being seriously maltreated with hunting animals, and the Minister of State needs to address this. He mentioned direct exports. As he will be aware, 80% of the dogs in the UK are our dogs, dogs that were bred here - beautiful, intelligent animals. Has the Minister of State made any contact with the equivalent Department or Minister in the UK to bring this matter to their attention and see what they might be able to do together? I know the Irish Department will be in contact with its equivalent in the UK regarding Brexit, our agriculture and fisheries and so on. In this context, the Bill I introduced was advocated strongly by the Dogs Trust welfare organisation. There is great eagerness to create a white list of countries that treat greyhounds and dogs generally well and to set the example for Britain. Has the Minister of State held any such discussions?
I do not have the answer because I am substituting for the Minister today. The Deputy is right that 80% of the animals in the UK are exported from Ireland, so it would be helpful to have the level of information to which he refers. However, no more than anything else with Brexit, having control over the UK after its exit from the EU on the issue of further exports will be problematic if we continue to export to the UK, which we probably will. Given that there is demand, or enthusiasm, in some of the countries the Deputy mentioned for this kind of activity, there is work to be done on that end by colleague organisations across the globe in many ways. These are global bodies - NGOs and the like - and they have a body of work to do.
In respect of the breeding and racing of dogs and horses, the UK and Ireland operate as a single entity, I think, so there is clearly an opportunity there for the Minister of State, even in the context of Brexit, to ensure that high standards are adhered to.
Will the Government just accept the legislation I tabled or will it incorporate it as part of the greyhound industry reform Bill? Deputy Penrose has been doing a lot of work in this area. Will the Government take all the legislation together and improve the welfare of our greyhounds?
Welfare is an integral part of the new greyhound legislation. The Bill the Deputy brought before the House is more comprehensive than ours. As Deputies Martin Kenny and Charlie McConalogue will be aware, the agriculture committee hopes to return the greyhound Bill after our consideration of it during pre-legislative scrutiny next Tuesday. We will be anxious to expedite the Bill. It will be hard to get it done before the summer recess but we hope to advance it as quickly as possible. I think it would be better to work in parallel rather than trying to work the two Bills into one. The tripartite agreement between Ireland, England and France has a serious impact on our horse industry as well as our greyhound industry, so that is something to take up.
Potato Sector
Fiona O'Loughlin
Question:8. Deputy Fiona O'Loughlin asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if there is an environmental restriction on the use of copper sulphate for the treatment of potato blight; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21921/17]
I offer my congratulations to the Minister of State on the retention of his position. It is well merited. I wish to talk to him today about potato blight. Agricultural crops, including potatoes, provide a very strong livelihood for so many in south Kildare, and there are many potato farmers in addition to the thousands of home producers. The margins can be very tight, as we have witnessed with the impact of Brexit on the mushroom sector recently in Kildare and indeed throughout the country. My specific question to the Minister of State is whether there is an environmental restriction on the use of copper sulphate for the treatment of potato blight, and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I thank the Deputy for her good wishes.
All "copper compounds", including copper sulphate, used for crop protection purposes - predominantly organic production - were reviewed at EU level in 2009. At that time, EU conditional approval was granted to "copper compounds" for a period of ten years. It was then left up to member states to approve individual products which conform with the EU approval. An application has recently been received by my Department to authorise a product containing a copper compound and there may well be additional product applications in response to demand, primarily, as I said, by the organic sector.
As with all plant protection products, authorisation and use conditions for products containing a copper compound will be established based on the comprehensive risk assessments carried out. In addition, risk mitigation measures such as buffer zones or the use of personal protective equipment are often applied.
Like all plant protection products, there are limits as to how much of each individual product can be applied to a given area, and copper compounds are no different. Member states are required to pay particular attention to issues such as impurities in the material manufactured, operator safety and the protection of water and non-target organisms.
At a recent public meeting on agriculture that I hosted in Kildare with my good friend and colleague, Deputy McConalogue, the issue of EU over-regulation was raised. Farmers in Kildare, and I have no doubt throughout the country, want assurance that our Government is fighting for them and not being bound by regulations that may suit other countries that have different climates to the one enjoyed by us at the edge of Europe. Until recent years, we had but one single strain of potato blight to contend with in Ireland, but the arrival on our shores of a second type had the result of turning one line of blight into a family tree. Luckily, the new strains of blight have remained somewhat susceptible to copper, and this allows farmers to grow potatoes with a reasonable natural resistance to the disease.
However, I was contacted by constituents who became concerned when discovering there was a difficulty using copper, as no company had registered a copper product as a fungicide in Ireland. This has been done in most other EU member states. Ireland is just one of five countries not to have done so. The other four do not have a similar climate to Ireland's, which is susceptible to the potato blight. Even though copper is a trace element that is essential for all forms of life, it faces an uncertain future as a fungicide since the EU seems to want to ban it.
When purchased, copper sulphate comes in a bag marked for use as a feed additive for animals. Is copper a feed or a toxin?
The smart answer is it is both. I know that from experience. Deputy Aylward will be aware that when animals deficient in copper are given an injection, they will die if they are too given much copper but if they are given the right amount, they will be cured.
That is true.
A little of everything is good.
One learns something new every day. This is a response to allow for the use of products containing copper in certain circumstances in organic farming systems. It is, therefore, permissible. One application for authorisation of a product containing the active substance, copper oxychloride, was received in March this year and it is anticipated there will be a decision on that soon. It is also anticipated there will be more applications. It is true that there is no product on the market but one was applied for three months ago. Perhaps that is why people are saying there is a difficulty. The EU permits copper use but each member state has to deal with each specific application because there are different compositions in products. They should not be contaminated but they may be and that has to be scrutinised.
I accept that and I thank the Minister of State for his reply. Potato yield has decreased by 7.9% since 2015, even though the area under potatoes has increased by 6.1%. There is, therefore, an issue in this regard. According to French research, copper-based fungicides common in organic farming can be toxic to earthworms but this is not applicable to Irish soil and I welcome the Minister of State's comment that members states have the capacity to determine their own future on this issue. Bord Bia's Pathways for Growth report refers to Ireland's enviable position in respect of growing potatoes. The Minister of State will agree that it is essential for the economic well-being of rural Ireland that we retain the capacity to serve the customers have been identified in this report and it is also essential that copper can be used safely in our blight favouring climatic conditions. It will thus become an important option in the toolbox of organic and conventional farmers as we work towards fulfilling market demand.
The application that was submitted in March is being processed and, hopefully, it will get the necessary sanction as soon as possible with the conditions as outlined attached. This is why sprayer safety courses, of which several thousand have been undertaken, are so important. The crop which is sprayed with these products must be treated with respect while the products should avoid the crops they are not meant to treat.
Agriculture Scheme Administration
Bobby Aylward
Question:9. Deputy Bobby Aylward asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his plans to identify and rectify the persistent problems with the information technology system in his Department's Portlaoise office, which is leading to consistent delays in payment for farmers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28162/17]
Like my colleagues, I congratulate the Minister of State and I wish will him in the continuation of his Ministry. He will do a good job. I served with him previously on the agriculture committee and he has good insight into the industry. What are his plans to identify and rectify the persistent problems with the information technology system in the Department's Portlaoise office, which is leading to consistent delays in payment for farmers?
I thank the Deputy. We soldiered together ten years on the committee.
My Department has an excellent record in the delivery of high quality ICT systems. In that respect, my Department is ahead of the rest of our European partners and are also highly regarded across the civil and public service. We have been consistently among the first to make payments in the EU.
The basic payment scheme, BPS, which is operated from our Portlaoise office, was introduced in 2015, enabling Ireland to be among one of the first member states to make payments under the new CAP schemes. The online uptake for this scheme has increased steadily with more than 109,000 applications submitted by this means in 2017. The BPS system has been improved on year on year to make it more farmer-farm adviser friendly. A total of 99.7% of 2016 BPS applicants have been paid to date while 97.7% were paid on the initial date of balancing payments, which is 1 December.
In the context of the Rural Development Programme 2015-2020, RDP, to which the Deputy referred specifically, the Department has delivered more than 20 new schemes that were supported by IT capability over the past two years. In the first two years of the current RDP, my Department has implemented substantially more schemes than were implemented over the entire ten-year lifetime of the previous RDP programme. To date Ireland has drawn down funding at a rate 2.4 times higher than the EU average. This rate of delivery and draw-down would not have been possible without the availability of complex IT software systems to support the business units in operating these schemes. Since 2014 my Department has adopted a policy of implementing fully digital end-to-end support for all but the smallest of schemes.
A number of different issues delayed GLAS payments, which I outlined earlier.
There is a need for an immediate review of the current IT payment systems following the massive problems faced by farmers submitting applications for overdue payments under many rural development programme schemes. Enormous barriers are being experienced with the online system for GLAS, TAMS, the beef genomics programme and the knowledge transfer group scheme. The addition of a plethora of wholly bureaucratic schemes has added hugely to the costs of farmers and has led to a lengthy delay in the issuance of payments, for example, under the GLAS scheme. More complicated rules on farm schemes have led to an explosion in compliance costs and reduced the net financial benefit of many schemes to farmers. Under GLAS, it was agreed that up to 75% of payments would be commenced by the third week of October 2016 with the balance of payments in mid-December. At the beginning of May 2017, approximately 3,000 GLAS 1 and GLAS 2 applicants were still waiting on 85% of their 2016 payments, despite a farmer's charter of rights meeting where the Department made a commitment that all outstanding payments would be made by the end of April. Six weeks later, 94% of payments have been made, according to an update yesterday. The Department is still behind and I hope the charter will be adhered to in the future and farmers will be paid on time.
This issue has been well-documented by the Deputy, his colleagues and others. Approximately 94% of applicants have been paid under GLAS. Documentation is awaited for 1,200 applications while another 1,400 are under review. The loading of information relating to the knowledge transfer scheme was not being accepted but that has been resolved and the deadline has been extended to 31 July. Of the 11,800 applications under TAMS, more than 3,300 payments have issued. A total of 1,394 claims were received with 898 payments issued. The online payment claims facility has been open since July 2016 and payments are issuing on an ongoing basis. TAMS II had a three-year window, which is delaying payments. It, however, gives applicants a window to claim. The payments, therefore, are not being drawn down as quickly as they might be if there was a one-year deadline for the completion of works.
The Department's administration of some recent farm schemes was branded totally unacceptable by the IFA as recently as last month.
I understand the IFA requested meetings with the Minister to ensure the situation is taken under control as a matter of urgency. Will the Minister of State facilitate a meeting with the IFA? The IFA President, Joe Healy, has said the GLAS payments controversy, difficulties with TAMS payments and issues over the administration of the knowledge transfer scheme are evidence of serious problems within certain areas of the Department.
I began to chase up the TAMS issue in August 2016 with the agricultural liaison officer in the Minister's office. I then followed up with parliamentary questions in September and October. For four months the most up-to-date information I could get was a reply that stated that all applications received in each tranche have to be checked for administrative issues before they are then ranked and selected, and that this process was under way for the 2,000 applications received in tranche 3. A late payment might finally have gone through in early December, which would leave dairy farmers maybe six or weeks at best to complete the works applied for before the cows calve in January and they have to start milking. The barriers imposed on these farmers are completely out of order and there is a serious problem that needs to be rectified. It is a question of the timescale from when the applications are accepted. These farmers might have started milking in January and February with the spring calving, and they do not have time to get everything in order because of delays at departmental level.
More than 20 schemes were rolled out in the last two years. There have been some teething problems but we do not anticipate these will arise again. The TAMS dairy schemes in particular were prioritised although one or two issues arose. In particular, changes were made to the criteria to allow people to proceed where planning permission may not have been secured but had been validated-----
It was not always the fault of the farmer.
It was very difficult. At one stage the farmer had to have the planning permission cleared 28 days after the grant of conditional planning. That changed because it was going to cause a delay of 12 weeks from the time somebody applied. Therefore, once planning permission was validated, applications were allowed to proceed on the basis that they were going to get permission. That was risky enough at times in that the approval might have been paid for but a building would be found to be not in compliance with the planning.
Efforts have been made. I accept there is more to be done but we can address that in the programmes that follow.
Brexit Issues
James Browne
Question:10. Deputy James Browne asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his plans to respond to the threats facing County Wexford agriculture regarding Brexit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28165/17]
I want to ask about the Minister's plans to respond to the threats to agriculture from Brexit, with a particular focus on County Wexford.
There is no doubt that Brexit will have an impact on the outlook for Irish agriculture in all counties, including Wexford. Farming is an essential part of the social, cultural and economic fabric of Ireland. It is also part of a wider EU dispensation that values a Common Agriculture Policy built on family farming, food security, high standards of food safety and environmental sustainability. These are values that we hold dear so it is critically important, when we consider the impact of Brexit, that the positive contribution of agriculture to the rural and national economy, and to society in Ireland and elsewhere in the European Union, is to the forefront in our deliberations.
Over the past few months the Minister and I have engaged with counterparts in other member states in an effort to sensitise them to the potential impact of an unfavourable Brexit agreement, or no agreement, not only on Ireland but on the EU agrifood sector generally. In this regard, there is regular engagement with the Commission, the UK, including Northern Ireland, and other member states, both at political and official level. The Minister, Deputy Creed, and I have had specific bilateral meetings with counterparts in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Estonia, Poland, Luxembourg, Austria and Spain to seek to establish common ground on the Brexit issue.
My Department and its agencies have conducted various analyses of the likely impact of Brexit on the agrifood sector. These analyses range from internal departmental assessments to published work by Teagasc and Bord Bia. This is an ongoing process and it will continue through extensive consultation with stakeholders via the Department's stakeholder consultative committee and through the all-island civic dialogue process, in respect of which I have already hosted five agrifood and fisheries sectoral dialogues.
While the main impact to date of the Brexit vote has been the effect of sterling volatility on those businesses that have a significant trading relationship with the UK, the medium-term to long-term threats include the possible introduction of tariffs on trade between the EU and UK, potential divergences in regulations and standards between the EU and UK post-Brexit, and the implications of border controls and certification requirements. Difficult challenges also arise in regard to potentially restricted access to fishing grounds and resources.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The Minister is very aware of these potential threats but he remains very focused on supporting the agrifood industry through the challenges ahead. He has already provided additional resources to Bord Bia and this has, inter alia, funded its Brexit barometer, which is a valuable tool to allow participating companies to assess their own preparedness for Brexit. The learning from this very useful exercise will also help to inform policymakers. He has asked them to conduct a market profiling exercise to help to prioritise market access efforts and he recently announced a seven-point plan to intensify the Department's efforts on this front. As part of the wider Government response, the Minister will continue to assess the risk to the Irish agrifood sector in order to provide appropriate supports to mitigate any risk.
The Minister has also provided a number of other supports for the sector, including a €150 million low-cost loan scheme, agri-taxation measures and increased funding under the rural and seafood development programmes. The Minister will also continue to consult with the industry as the negotiations develop and press Ireland's case at European level for continued free access to the UK market, without tariffs and with minimal additional customs and administrative procedures, together with the minimisation of the risk from UK trade agreements with third countries.
This question arises out of the current fears of farmers in my constituency. The Wexford agricultural sector is facing many threats with the imminent departure of the UK from the European Union. Wexford has a strong agrifood sector and the county provides 10% of the country's total agrifood output. Brexit presents a serious economic threat to the agrifood sector as a whole. As the Minister of State is aware, 270,000 jobs rely on the agrifood sector in this country. The value of agrifood exports arising out of agricultural output in County Wexford is €500 million. Several agrifood businesses have already been hit hard due to currency fluctuations and a reluctance to invest as a result of the uncertainty around Brexit. I am somewhat alarmed by the apparent lack of concern that seems to be emanating from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine concerning the existential threats to some sectors within the agrifood sector.
I do not accept there is a lack of concern. The Department had prepared for the eventuality of a decision by the UK to leave the EU and had scoped out the potential damage that could do to the sector. As I outlined in my opening response, I visited the Netherlands and Belgium in March and the Minister, Deputy Creed, has visited a large number of member states in trying to reaffirm Ireland's particular set of circumstances and exposure to a very unfavourable Brexit deal, or no deal, which would be worse. We are working on this and it is an ongoing effort.
The Minister is this week in the United States and Mexico on a trade mission, which has been successful. That will achieve a certain mitigation but, nonetheless, we still export 40% of all our agricultural products to the UK. The mushroom sector exports 80% of its product to the UK and the forestry sector 70%, so there is particular exposure in some sectors.
I will give an example to show where my concern is coming from. In the event of a hard Brexit whereby the UK leaves the customs union, any goods getting to and from the Continent through the UK will face four customs checks out and in, including checks in Britain and France. Some 80% of the goods going to the Continent use the UK land bridge. If that land bridge is lost, how do we get our goods to the Continent, for example, roll-on, roll-off and livestock goods? The only option is through Rosslare Europort. The last time I raised this in the House, the then Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade accused me of parish pump politics. To the best of my knowledge, until very recently the Minister, Deputy Ross, had not even bothered to contact anybody in Rosslare Europort and certainly had not met anyone there. He still refuses to publish in the Indecon report around it. That is the concern. If the hammer falls down and we cannot get our goods across the UK land bridge, come a hard Brexit, and we do not have the facilities in Rosslare Europort, how are we going to get our goods to the Continent? Nobody seems to be taking that issue seriously because nobody seems to be addressing it.
It is important to point out in regard to the agrifood trade between Ireland and the UK that we export approximately €4.8 billion worth of product to the UK and, in return, we purchase €3.7 billion worth of product, which is 46% of our total food imports from the UK. Therefore, there is a mutual trading arrangement of almost €9 billion.
With regard to the specific query, I have been speaking to members of staff at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, who have been to countries such as Lithuania, which has an arrangement with Belarus whereby product goes to Lithuania and back to Belarus and is treated as if it never left the country. If we take the import of flowers to this country from the Netherlands on a daily basis over a land bridge, it is very exposed to the same scenario outlined by the Deputy. This is why we are engaging with countries which are likely to be the most impacted by Brexit, to build up strategic alliances with those nations.
Harbours and Piers Development
Maureen O'Sullivan
Question:11. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine when the harbour works on Cape Clear Island, County Cork, will be completed. [28158/17]
This question relates to the harbour works on Cape Clear. When will they be completed?
The Department owns, manages and maintains six designated State-owned fishery harbour centres, at Castletownbere, Dingle, Dunmore East, Howth, Killybegs and Ros an Mhíl. In addition, the Department also has responsibility for the upkeep and maintenance of North Harbour at Cape Clear, as well as the maintenance of a small number of specific piers, lights and beacons throughout Ireland, in accordance with the 1902 ex-congested Districts Board Piers, Lights and Beacons Act.
Under the 2017 fishery harbour and coastal infrastructure capital programme, I have approved funding of €28 million for the overall programme, with €720,000 being allocated for maintenance and development works on North Harbour at Cape Clear Island in 2017.
The 2017 programme provides €200,000 for pontoons at Cape Clear and €250,000 for the design, preparation of contract documents and planning for additional repair work to Duffy's Pier. The remainder of the funding is allocated to safety and maintenance works, and the finalisation of 2016 projects.
The pontoons have been procured and it is anticipated that installation will be completed during the summer months. The Duffy’s Pier preparatory work will also be completed in 2017. However, further work will be subject to permission and funding in future years.
The sands of time have caught up with us. I apologise to Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan, but there is not enough time for supplementary questions. I took a chance on getting the reply.
Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.