Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 2 Mar 2005

Vol. 598 No. 6

Priority Questions.

EU Directives.

Denis Naughten

Ceist:

64 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the revised proposals she intends to make to the European Commission following its rejection of the Government’s implementation strategy on the nitrates directive; the interim measures she intends to take to commence the implementation of the directive; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [7056/05]

The implementation of the nitrates directive is a matter in the first instance for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Ireland submitted an action programme for further implementation of the directive to the European Commission on 22 October 2004. The Commission conveyed its view, by way of a letter of formal notice under Article 228 of the European Union Treaty issued to Ireland dated 22 December 2004, that the action programme is not complete and does not comply with the requirements of the directive and the judgment of the European Court of Justice against Ireland delivered on 11 March 2004.

My Department is working with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on the preparation of a response to the Commission. Senior officials from my Department and their counterparts in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government are in contact with the relevant Commission officials and this process of consultation and negotiation is continuing.

The action programme submitted to the Commission in October included arrangements for further implementation of the directive. These are among the elements that the Commission queried in its letter of formal notice on 22 December. The discussions with the Commission that are currently taking place at official level are exploring these aspects along with the others that the Commission raised.

Agreement with the Commission is necessary, not only to avoid the risk of substantial fines on Ireland but also to safeguard ongoing EU funding of rural development measures. It remains my objective, and it is also the objective of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, to reach agreement on an action programme that meets the objectives of the nitrates directive in terms of safeguarding water quality while also minimising the burden of compliance that the agreement will place on farmers and safeguarding the future of the commercial farming sector.

I thank the Minister for her response. From that and the Minister's comments on 9 February at the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food, it appears she is teeing us up for a fall-back in regard to the Brosnan proposals. Is that the case? In her response, the Minister focused on the discussion and negotiation. Is she prepared to defend the scientific basis that has been put forward in the Brosnan proposals and make the case on the scientific evidence rather than entering into negotiations with the Commission and climbing down from the Government's position in regard to the Brosnan proposals?

The Brosnan proposals which were agreed by all of the stakeholders have not been accepted by the Commission. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and his officials, in addition to my officials, went to Brussels where we had discussions with the Commission on the basis of the Brosnan proposals. However the Commission is still adamant that it will not accept the proposals. In particular, it believes the mandatory waste storage periods are too short. The Commission also takes issue with the closed periods. It accepts the division of zones in theory but the ones proposed by Brosnan are not acceptable. The Commission wishes to see regulations having a binding effect on farmers and it did not consider that the material in the proposals was sufficiently detailed.

Further exploration and discussions are needed with the Commission to ascertain what will be acceptable to it. That is why I said that discussions and negotiations are taking place. The situation is serious. There are major financial implications for us, in the region of €11 million, once the court case date clicks in. As well as not getting agreement we will have difficulties in our rural development measure, about which I would have serious concerns. Moreover, the farming community is aware that there must be an opportunity to discuss and negotiate what will be acceptable to the Commission and to the farming fraternity.

Is it not the case that the closed periods, storage issues and so on were put forward on the basis of the scientific evidence available to Mr. Denis Brosnan? That case has already been put forward. It now appears that both the Department of Agriculture and Food and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government are scaling back from that and are looking at extended closed and storage periods. The Minister does not appear to be prepared to support her own scientific evidence that formed the basis of the proposals put forward in the first instance. She now appears to be more preoccupied with rural development measures than the nitrates directive. Is the Minister prepared to sacrifice the nitrates directive to get a good basis for the negotiation of the rural development budget?

The Deputy is factually incorrect, as always. He has pre-empted one issue which he considers to be more important than another. The nitrates directive is not within my ambit; it is within the ambit of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. That said, I am acutely aware, as are my colleagues, of the implications of the nitrates action plan. Perhaps we should have taken some of these concerns on board ten years ago. Deputy Crawford can nod away, but his party was in Government during that time as well and it did not do very much either to try and bring together the farming fraternities on this issue.

The Minister's party has been in power for the past eight years.

I am being realistic on the basis that an agreement has been implemented in Northern Ireland, and due to the necessity of agreeing an action plan and the financial and other implications of it for the country. Moreover, the farming fraternity is acutely aware of the issues that have arisen. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government went to Europe on the basis of the Brosnan proposals. They are not being accepted by the Commission, nor have many other proposals put forward by other member states which also had to be changed in order to satisfy the water quality issues set down by the Commission. We are in the process of having serious discussions with the Commission to ascertain what may be acceptable. On that basis, perhaps some compromise may be needed in order to have an acceptable nitrates action plan.

Barr
Roinn