EU Fines and Financial Penalties

Oral Answers to Questions — Agriculture and Rural Development – in the Northern Ireland Assembly at 2:45 pm on 23 February 2016.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of David McNarry David McNarry UKIP 2:45, 23 February 2016

3. Mr McNarry asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development how much her Department has paid in fines and financial penalties levied by the European Union since 2008. (AQO 9710/11-16)

Photo of Michelle O'Neill Michelle O'Neill Sinn Féin

Financial corrections imposed on my Department by the European Union since 2008 amount to €78 million. However, the actual financial cost to my Department is lower, at €59 million, due to the fact that the recovery of overpaid moneys to claimants is taken into account by the Commission. The total amount of disallowance should be considered in the context of the funding that we receive from the CAP. During the period from 2007 to 2013, we received €2·2 billion under pillar 1 and a further €329 million under pillar 2 before any matched funding. Over the 2014-2020 budget period, pillar 1 payments to our farmers will amount to €2·3 billion. In addition, €228 million of EU funds will be devoted to our rural development programme, resulting in a total planned expenditure under the CAP of €2·53 billion.

Photo of David McNarry David McNarry UKIP

I am somewhat astounded — actually, flabbergasted — by the amounts. These are fines and penalties. The Minister said little about the reasons or whether there had been repetitive failures. Given that she might elaborate on that, can she also tell us what, in fact, she is doing to stop future fines and penalties of this nature?

Photo of Michelle O'Neill Michelle O'Neill Sinn Féin

Yes, I think we have done a considerable body of work. If you remember — I have said this to the House on numerous occasions in the past — the reasons for disallowance at different times, particularly in how Europe conducted its audits a number of years later and then applied things retrospectively, has led to challenges. However, year-on-year I can certainly point to improvements and have been able to bring that disallowance down. I do not have a breakdown of the figures, but I am happy to provide it to you. We have certainly been able to make a significant difference in the amounts of disallowance that have been applied.

As I said, I have talked up the amounts that we receive year-on-year here in single farm payments and the rural development programme, and we continue to have a programme in place that will lead us up to 2020 and will see €2·53 billion coming into the local economy. I think we can all be very clear that the farming community needs that and the wider rural community needs it, as it is investment in basic services, rural business and rural tourism. All those factors will benefit us immensely, and the wider rural community will benefit immensely from the contribution of €2·53 billion in planned spend from the EU budget.

Photo of Gregory Campbell Gregory Campbell Shadow DUP Spokesperson (International Development), Shadow DUP Spokesperson (Cabinet Office)

This is not a question about the EU, as the people of the United Kingdom, in the next three months, will decide that, but the issue relates to our membership of the EU.

The Minister will be well aware, I am sure, of the considerable time that officials in her Department have to spend when they are facing EU restrictions, bureaucracy, guidelines and the fines issues, which has just been mentioned.

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP 3:00, 23 February 2016

Can the Member come to a question?

Photo of Gregory Campbell Gregory Campbell Shadow DUP Spokesperson (International Development), Shadow DUP Spokesperson (Cabinet Office)

Can she elaborate today or, if not today, subsequently in writing on the timeline for all of her departmental officials to analyse those things to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland?

Photo of Michelle O'Neill Michelle O'Neill Sinn Féin

I can assure the Member that my officials spend their time making sure that we distribute the funding in as quick a manner as we possibly can. The year-on-year improvements in getting single farm payments into farmers' pockets are very clear; the evidence is there to back up what I am saying.

I often hear this argument about regulations. Anybody who thinks that regulations are going to disappear post-Brexit are absolutely deluded. There will always be regulations in place. If we were to start out tomorrow not as a member of the European Union and wanted to trade with it, we would have to abide by the regulations from Europe to get into that market. It is delusional, to say the least, for people to use the argument that coming out of Europe will mean that there will be no regulation for farmers. Going forward, we need to look at the fact that there is £2·53 billion available for our local economy.

[Interruption.]

Where is that money going to be replaced from? I can be very assured —

Photo of Michelle O'Neill Michelle O'Neill Sinn Féin

I can be very assured that the British Government have no intention of replacing that funding. When I was at the Food and Drink Association (NIFDA) launch this morning, representatives of the agrifood industry here in the North clearly said that the agrifood industry's interests are best served within Europe. They clearly out set the challenges that there are and the implications for trade. They clearly set that out. There is no doubt. If anybody is any doubt, they should pick up a copy of the document, and they will be able to read that for themselves.

As for trade for our agrifood industry going forward, we export 73% of what we produce. We export 90% of the food and drink that we produce into the European market. The implications for our local economy are absolutely immense. Going back to Mr Campbell's question, which he is getting quite exercised about —

[Interruption.]

Photo of Michelle O'Neill Michelle O'Neill Sinn Féin

I have answered his question, but I will talk to officials about the timelines that he talked about. I think, however, that officials would be best served trying to administer that money and to get it out into the rural economy and farmers' pockets instead of answering silly questions on the length of time it takes to chase up all those other things that he is talking about.

Photo of Stewart Dickson Stewart Dickson Alliance

Minister, when it comes to fines and penalties, can you tell us who will be paying the fines and penalties if there is, for example, a pollution incident on land at Woodburn forest over which you have administrative control?

Photo of Michelle O'Neill Michelle O'Neill Sinn Féin

I very clearly set out the situation in relation to Woodburn and the fact that that is an NI Water issue in relation to DRD, which is not within my remit.

Photo of Michelle O'Neill Michelle O'Neill Sinn Féin

No, it is not my land. We take land — I have made that point very clear. Woodburn forest is owned by NI Water. The trees are managed by the Department's Forest Service under a management agreement between both parties. That is factually correct. You can shake your head all you want; it is factually correct.

Photo of Jim Allister Jim Allister Traditional Unionist Voice

This is a side of the EU that Europhiles like the Minister do not like to talk about: the fact that it fines us tens of millions of euros on the administration of our own money that comes back to us. On the question of the strangling bureaucracy, the EU Commission has admitted that the cost of bureaucracy — its regulations on the economies — is 4% of GDP. What does that translate into in terms of the charge on agriculture in Northern Ireland? What is 4% of the GDP, because that is the cost of regulation?

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

That question is beyond the original question. Over to the Minister, if she wishes to reply.

Photo of Michelle O'Neill Michelle O'Neill Sinn Féin

I again make the point that I absolutely agree with the Member's point about European bureaucracy. There is too much red tape, and there are obstacles that we need to address. We need to challenge Europe, and we have been successful in doing that in some instances, particularly in relation to greening around CAP reform. We have a way to go, but that is our job. We should be challenging Europe. We should be out there fighting our corner and making our arguments. We are able and fit to articulate our arguments and to make the case and, through strength of voice, to join with other EU countries, where we can, to do that. To say that there is not going to be any regulation in place post-Brexit is nonsense. There will be regulations in place for the farming industry and the wider rural community on environmental issues and all those things. If we want to trade with Europe, there will be regulations in place and things that we will need to deal with.

I make my point. It is interesting that, in the last number of Question Times, we have quite often had a conversation about the Brexit. I think that that is great. I have continually said that I think that it is good to have that debate, and we will hear a lot more of it in the months ahead. It is very clear that NIFDA, which represents the agrifood industry, said this morning that our place is better in Europe, and the CBI — the business institute for the North — said that we are better within Europe. When we look at all the benefits that come for the agrifood industry and the farming industry, we can see that we are better placed within Europe.

I caveat all that by saying that there are issues within Europe that we need to challenge. I have consistently said that. I am certainly not a Eurofad, but I am up for critical engagement with Europe.