Billy Timmins
Question:1 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food when REP scheme III will be implemented; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14886/04]
Priority Questions.
Rural Environment Protection Scheme.
The European Commission presented Ireland's proposals for amendments to REPS to the agricultural structures STAR committee meeting on 11 May 2004, with a recommendation that they be approved. Following discussion on a technical issue raised by another member state, however, the chairman deferred the vote on the Irish proposal to the next meeting of the committee to allow for clarification of the issue by the Commission's legal services. The issue relates to the manner in which REPS payments are related to a land area which may not be the same as the area that is subject to agri-environmental undertakings. It arose from further legal interpretation of the regulation within the Commission services since the current REPS was approved in September 2000.
While I was disappointed at this unforeseen delay, especially as Commissioner Fischler and his officials had co-operated fully in progressing the Irish proposal, the issue is a technical one. My officials made immediate contact with the Commission following the STAR committee decision and they met senior Commission officials earlier this week to identify precisely the matters which need to be addressed. Following the meeting, my officials and the Commission have exchanged further information and I am confident that the matter can be brought to a successful conclusion very shortly.
It is important to point out also that this temporary delay will put no REPS farmer at a financial disadvantage. My officials have confirmed with their counterparts in the Commission that when the revised scheme is introduced, all farmers with a start date or anniversary date after 1 March 2004 will be in a position to benefit from it.
Does the Minister agree it is most disappointing that a scheme heralded as cut and dry collapsed at the last minute? While it may be nothing more than a temporary delay, as the Minister indicated, it shakes people's confidence in the system when an agreement made in 2000 has still not been finalised almost four years later. I assume the matter will be addressed at the next Agriculture Council. Will the Minister assure the House that agreement will be reached on that date? I wish to see the matter brought to a conclusion.
While it is disappointing that a technical issue has delayed formal approval of the scheme, the matter is before the Commission's services and is being resolved. I hope a resolution will be found as early as next week. At any rate, the decision will not place any farmer at a disadvantage and no loss will accrue as a result because the scheme will take effect from 1 March this year. A person making a fresh application after that date will be entitled to the full, increased REPS rate. As the Deputy will be aware, the average increase is 28% and €260 million has been allocated to be expended under the scheme. Any person currently in REPS II whose anniversary date occurs any time after 1 March will automatically transfer to the new REPS III scheme.
Once we get clearance of the technical problem at services level, we will be required to await the next STAR committee meeting in June before making application forms available to farmers, who will then be able to apply to the scheme in anticipation of the formal decision of the next meeting.
Did the Minister or his officials have prior knowledge of the technical difficulty before the meeting of the STAR committee took place?
We had no prior knowledge. The sequence was that Ireland submitted the new REP scheme to the Commission in the first week of December last year. The matter was dealt with in the Commission in consultation with Ireland and formally approved by the Commission services which recommended its approval at the STAR meeting held earlier this month. It is unprecedented for any such approved recommendation of the Commission to be delayed. In this case, the delay was due to a technicality.
As I stated, for all practical purposes farmers will not sustain any loss or inconvenience because the scheme will be retroactive to 1 March this year. Nonetheless, we want to receive clearance for the scheme in order that forms can be made available to enable farmers to apply. The decision to increase the allocation to REPS by €70 million or 28% to €260 million was made in an effort to encourage farmers, in view of the nitrates directive, to meet best farming practice. This is the reason we negotiated an enhanced REP scheme and we want to implement it as quickly as possible.
World Trade Negotiations.
Mary Upton
Question:2 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food his views on the proposal by the EU to offer access for an extra 50,000 tonnes of Hilton beef cuts and a further 50,000 tonnes at the successful conclusion of the WTO talks; his further views on the impact this decision will have on the beef industry here and on whether the quality assurance on the imported beef is the same as that produced locally; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14884/04]
I presume the Deputy is referring to high quality beef imports in the context of the proposed Mercosur agreement. I have expressed my concern to Commissioner Fischler about the direction of the Mercosur negotiations and particularly the extent of the Commission's apparent willingness to negotiate an enhanced level of access to the Community market for beef from these countries. It is my view that to concede increased import access to non-EU beef at this time will put Irish and EU suppliers at a disadvantage and will limit the ability of the domestic beef sector to take advantage of the recent CAP reform. One of the important considerations from the Luxembourg agreement was that there would be a reduction in EU production, which would in turn lead to increased returns for those who continue to produce. I am concerned about the handing over of these benefits to non-EU suppliers at this stage in the WTO negotiations. A substantial Hilton quota is already available to the Mercosur countries, amounting to 40,300 tonnes per year at preferential import duty rates. In addition, there are additional significant commercial imports at full duty rates into the EU from these countries. These are possible because of their scale of production in the countries in question and the considerable exchange rate advantage they are experiencing. The import into the EU of high value cuts is of particular concern in that the ability of Irish beef exporters to maximise returns from the marketplace is dependent on maintaining returns from medium and high value cuts. Their efforts are being undermined by the ability of third countries to target their commercial exports, paying full import duties, at the higher end of the EU market while disposing of the lower value part of the carcase on their domestic market or to the global manufacturing trade. By exporting high quality cuts only, as compared to all cuts from the carcase in their natural proportion, third country suppliers are maximising the benefit of their limited volume access to EU markets by securing high value outlets for these high value cuts. A further increase in the Hilton quota to Mercosur would exacerbate this problem. The Commission services have indicated that they are determined that the EU should not pay twice in these negotiations and that any offer is conditional on reciprocation from the Mercosur countries.
Additional Information.
With regard to quality assurance, beef imports into the European Union from third countries must have been sourced in countries and in premises which are currently listed and approved by the European Commission and subject to veterinary audits by the EU's Food and Veterinary Office. In addition, such imports are subject to checks laid down in the harmonised rules prescribed at European level and must be accompanied by the prescribed veterinary health certification from the competent authorities in the country of export.
The Community beef labelling requirements, which are compulsory in all member states, apply to beef sold at retail level within the Community, regardless of whether that beef was produced within the Community or in a third country. Where beef is imported into the Community from a third country it must, at a minimum, be labelled as "Origin: Non-EC" with an indication of the third country in which slaughter took place.
I thank the Minister for his extensive answer and for expressing concern at the impact any such agreement will have on the Irish beef industry. Does he agree the beef industry has had a hard time in the recent past and the last thing beef producers need is the introduction of further competition where that is done domestically or at European level? Is he confident quality assurance in this area is adequate and comparable with that expected in other European countries and with the rigorous quality assurance standards insisted upon in Ireland?
With regard to quality, beef imports into the EU from third countries must be sourced in countries and premises currently listed and approved by the European Commission and which are subject to veterinary audits by the EU's food and veterinary office. In addition, such imports are subject to checks laid down in the harmonised rules prescribed at European level and must be accompanied by the prescribed veterinary health certification by the competent authorities in the countries of export.
Beef labelling requirements, which are compulsory in all member states, apply to beef sold at retail level within the Community, regardless of whether the beef was produced within the Community or in third countries. Where beef, for example, is imported into the Community from a third country, it must, at a minimum, be labelled as "Origin Non-EC", along with an indication of the third country in which the slaughter took place.
Labelling is pertinent in regard to this issue. However, labelling a product as non-EU is inadequate because of concerns about issuing labels that specifically state the country of origin. That is the direction in which the consumer wishes to go. Is the Minister confident that testing procedures in Ireland, where spot checks presumably are done, are adequate to ensure beef of a lesser quality is not imported, particularly beef that contains residues?
The efficacy of the testing procedures is constantly improved and enhanced and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland is the competent authority in terms of enforcement. Its chief executive appeared before an Oireachtas committee yesterday and commented on this issue. Procedures are tightening all the time and consumers must be protected from adulteration and toxic residues. The competent authorities in Ireland and the EU food and veterinary office maintain confidence. Their primary objective is the protection of the consumer and they do precisely that.
Genetically Modified Organisms.
Martin Ferris
Question:3 Mr. Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he has abandoned his previous opposition to allowing genetically modified crops here; and if so, the reason therefore. [14888/04]
The Government's position on GMOs has been consistent from the outset and was adopted as a result of the report of the interdepartmental group on modern biotechnology published in October 2000, which recommended a positive but precautionary approach towards GMOs and biotechnology in general. I outlined to the House on previous occasions the potential benefits of modern biotechnology provided such activities are carried out under the most stringent controls and based on full scientific evidence to ensure human health and the environment are fully safeguarded. Such safeguards are in place following the adoption by the Council and European Parliament over the past two years or so of a raft of regulations on GMOs which also provide for consumer choice through the labelling provisions.
The Irish decision to support the proposal for authorisation of EU sweetcorn Bt11 for marketing in the EU as a food was taken initially by the Department of Health and Children, following consultation with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and on the basis of the scientific risk assessment undertaken by the Netherlands food assessment body and the EU scientific committee on food. These bodies concluded that Bt11 GM sweetcorn was as safe for human food use as conventional sweetcorn.
This position was adopted at the relevant EU regulatory committee which is serviced by the Department of Health and Children but the application did not receive the necessary qualified majority. Under Community rules it was then necessary for the Commission to put forward a proposal to the Council for a vote on the application. However, the necessary qualified majority was not achieved at the Agriculture Council and the decision to authorise the GM sweetcorn reverted to the Commission, which adopted the regulation yesterday.
The GM areas of direct relevance to my Department relate to the issue of the co-existence of GM crops alongside non-GM crops and controls on the authorisation and labelling of GM feed. The Commission decided that co-existence should be addressed at member state level and has provided a series of guidelines to assist in dealing with the issues that arise. All member states, including Ireland, are in the process of drawing up strategies and best practices to provide for effective co-existence arrangements.
An interdepartmental interagency working group has been established within my Department to establish the appropriate measures necessary for Irish farming practices and farming conditions and it has been given the task of identifying and evaluating the issues and implications for crop production in Ireland that would arise from the cultivation of GM crops and developing proposals for a national strategy and best practices to ensure the co-existence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The working group, as part of its work programme, is meeting relevant stakeholders in the preparation of their recommendations. These discussions will include the Northern Ireland authorities with particular reference to their co-existence strategies.
My Department has also introduced a sampling and analysis regime, in co-operation with the State Laboratory, aimed at ensuring that feed imports are labelled in accordance with the new labelling and traceability regulations recently introduced for GM food and feed. The Irish position on the future authorisation of GM events will be on a case-by-case basis, where scientific risk assessment and the controls provided by EU legislation will be critical considerations.
The Minister, together with the former Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Noel Dempsey, issued a statement in April 1997 in which they described GMOs as the largest nutritional experiment in human history with the consumer as a guinea pig. Is the Minister satisfied the guinea pig is okay from a health and safety point of view? Does he accept there has not been democratic consultation or decision making involving the Oireachtas or relevant committees?
It is asserted that GM crops could lead to higher productivity and returns for farmers but that is not the case. Monsanto's ready soya produced a yield which was 6.7% lower than the average yield of conventional varieties in 1998. A trial in 2000 highlighted a 11% differential. A 1998 University of Arkansas trial proved that GM soya and cotton produced lower yields and profits. Trials on GM oil, rape seed and sugar beet proved they generated between 5% and 8% lower yields than conventional crops. The main US and Canadian farmer representative groups have come out against GM foods because of the economic returns they yield.
I refer to co-existence with naturally produced foods. Commissioner Fischler was asked a question about this at the agriculture committee last week.
We are rapidly running out of time for this question. The purpose of Question Time is to elicit information.
How will farmers whose land has been contaminated as a result of GM production be compensated?
I have not heard of a farmer in Ireland who has been affected by GM contamination. I do not know where the Deputy is coming from. However, he raised a number of issues. I am satisfied the best international brains are deliberating on this issue. We established a national body which issued recommendations. This issue was discussed by the relevant authorities in each member state, the European Commission, various committees, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers and it went back to the Commission. Various agencies in Holland and Germany drew conclusions on the issue and the FSAI was consulted. The Department of Health and Children adopted a serious attitude to the issue and maintained the consistency of the Government's position, which is to be cautious but positive.
Many products have been of major benefit throughout the world in terms of animal and human health as a result of the experiments that have taken place. We will deal with this issue on a case-by-case basis and that will ensure our national food standard is protected and the great quality of food produced here is maintained without any threat from GM products.
EU Directives.
Billy Timmins
Question:4 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the recent discussions he has had with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government with respect to the nitrates directive; and if he will make a statement on the matter.[14887/04]
The implementation of the nitrates directive is, in the first instance, a matter for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Ireland is legally obliged to put into effect an action programme for the further implementation of the directive. The European Court of Justice, in its judgment of 11 March 2004, held that Ireland had not fulfilled its obligations under the nitrates directive by reason of its failure to establish and implement an action programme in accordance with Article 5 of the directive. It is open to the court, on the application of the European Commission, to impose substantial fines on Ireland if early action is not taken to give full effect to the directive.
The terms of the action programme need to be finalised at an early date given that EU co-funding of schemes such as the rural environment protection scheme, REPS, the disadvantaged areas compensatory allowance, early retirement and forestry schemes is conditional on satisfactory implementation of the directive. Compliance with the directive has also been specified as one of the conditions for farmers' participation in the single payment scheme following the decoupling of farm supports from production.
A draft action programme prepared by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in conjunction with my Department and in consultation with Teagasc was presented in December last to representatives of the main farming organisations and other stakeholders. Written submissions on the draft action programme have been received from 70 stakeholders, including all the main farming bodies, and a revised draft is being prepared by officials of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government together with officials from my Department.
Under Sustaining Progress, the Government is committed to using the flexibility in the nitrates directive to seek European Commission approval for organic nitrogen limits of up to 250 kg. per hectare per annum to be allowable in appropriate circumstances. It was also agreed in Sustaining Progress that the Government would engage with the main farming organisations and other interests on the development of the action programme for implementation of the directive. The consultations initiated by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in December last are part of that process. The issue has also been discussed at meetings, including a meeting earlier this week, between officials of both Departments and the farming pillar under Sustaining Progress.
Once the draft action programme is finalised and submitted to the Commission, Ireland will also submit a derogation designed to take account of the unique characteristics of Irish agriculture. Guidance documentation to support farmers in the successful implementation of the action programme is being developed by my Department.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
A number of significant steps have been taken to address the costs at farm level of the implementation of the draft action programme. The Government, in Sustaining Progress, stated: "recognising the importance of the Nitrates Directive and its impact on certain farmers, a number of initiatives shall be taken in the context of optimising the use of available EU and national budgetary resources". These initiatives included a review of REPS, with 28% higher payment rates, and changes to the terms and conditions of the farm waste management scheme and dairy hygiene scheme including, in particular, increasing the income and eligible investment ceilings.
The improvements in the farm waste management schemes and the dairy hygiene schemes are already in place and changes to REPS, delivering an average increase of 28% in payments to farmers, are expected to be approved shortly by the European Commission with retroactive effect from 1 March. The scheme of capital allowances for expenditure on farm pollution control has been extended to the end of 2006. A committee is examining issues associated with the possible introduction of low-cost wintering facilities such as earthen bank tanks for the storage of livestock manure.
I realise the implementation of the directive is not the Minister's responsibility in the first instance, but does he agree that the procrastination of various Governments since 1991 has left us in a position such that little can be done about the matter? Will he confirm that we are talking about a level of 170 kg. per hectare? I understand this figure has been mooted for several months, yet in recent days farm organisations seem to be up in arms, and quite rightly so, because there seems to be no way around it. Where did the false dawn come from? If my memory serves me well, the Minister stated during the Estimates meeting that the limit would be 170 kg. per hectare and that he would seek a derogation of up to 250 kg. per hectare for those who need it.
The policy we have of sweeping things under the carpet and waiting for someone else to make a decision has landed us in a position in which farmers are facing a difficult scenario. I am sure the Minister has agreed that procrastination has caused the difficulty. Given that the level is 170 kg. per hectare, is there any way the Minister can influence the European Commission into increasing it? I understood from talking to Mr. Fischler last week that he felt there was room for manoeuvre. Will the Minister confirm this?
Upon how many farmers will the limit of 170 kg. per hectare have an impact? For how many farmers will the Minister be seeking a derogation? When will the revised draft be sent to the EU? Have we any idea what the cost to farmers will be?
The position is that the directive dates from 1991 and we are grappling with it 13 years later. We were entitled to a transitionary period in the mid-1990s before the full implementation of the directive but did not avail of it. In the autumn of last year, the Netherlands was taken to the European Court of Justice and then it became a legal matter. We were taken to that court and a decision was made on 11 March which meant that neither the additional limit nor the transitionary period was available to us any longer. Therefore, we are now left with a general limit of 170 kg. per hectare on foot of the court decision. However, it was intimated by the Commission that if we sought a derogation and supplied it with supporting scientific data, it would regard our case sympathetically. Although there will be a general limit of 170 kg. per hectare, we are saying we want to increase it to 250 kg. per hectare by way of derogation.
One might ask why this poses a problem. The problem is that the stakeholders feel there will be too many conditions attached to the derogation. It would be the job of the negotiators to say they want a limit of 250 kg. of organic nitrogen per hectare because of Irish conditions and as few attached conditions as possible. That is what we are about to do.
Within the next couple of months, we must supply an action programme to Brussels, stipulating the limit of 170 kg. per hectare but seeking a derogation allowing for a limit of 250 kg. per hectare. The derogation sought will be deliberated upon and we will probably have a definitive outcome by November this year.
We will be implementing the direct payment system from 1 January 2005 and we will be liable to substantial fines of perhaps €20,000 to €30,000 per day if we do not meet our obligations. We would be jeopardising the direct payments and the compensatory payments. Time is running out, but we have a few months in which the social partners, stakeholders, the relevant Departments and Teagasc can create an action programme and a parallel application for a derogation shaped to suit Irish conditions.
It is important to point out that the Minister——
We exceeded seven minutes. We must proceed to Question No. 5 in the name of Deputy Upton.
——and Minister of State have been in the Department for a long time during that period.
We have been very generous in the way we have treated everyone.
The buck stops with the Minister of State.
Food Safety Standards.
Mary Upton
Question:5 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food his views on the recent report by the FVO, following a mission carried out from 15 to 18 September 2003, on the control systems for the placing on the market and use of plant protection products and for pesticide residues in foodstuffs of plant origin; if he has satisfied himself with the response to the recommendations in the report; if he has further satisfied himself that there are sufficient resources in place to ensure the delivery of the appropriate level of confidence in the testing regime for the products referred to; and if he will make a statement on the matter.[14885/04]
I was pleased with the results of the mission carried out last September by the FVO in that the audit did not identify any serious flaws regarding the control systems for the placing on the market and use of plant protection products and for pesticide residues in foodstuffs of plant origin. Some of the criticisms made in the report reflected a misunderstanding on the part of the FVO regarding the controls in place. The mission report identified a few issues that should be addressed. In each such case, either steps were already being taken to address the concerns or have since been taken. I am satisfied that adequate resources are in place for the delivery of the appropriate testing, as required under the relevant EU legislation. The development of the new laboratory complex in Backweston and the recruitment of further staff will further enhance this testing regime.
I am afraid I cannot share the Minister of State's confidence or the confidence he attributes to the FVO on this report. Reading the report is a negative experience. One bad report can be considered an accident but two bad reports must surely be carelessness of some sort. Yesterday, one will have seen on the Europa website that there is yet another report on residues in animal products. It is very negative and critical. What action can be taken to inspire confidence in the consumer at home and to inspire confidence in our exports?
The audit mission, by its nature, focused on flaws in the system in place. Its function is not to point out the positive aspects of the system and the progress made but to highlight the difficulties and flaws. In the past three years, the number of samples analysed by the laboratory has increased by some 240%, a huge increase. We have increased staff numbers and will continue to do so. We are building a modern complex at Backweston. Some Members of the House believe we should not do so but we are proceeding with it because we believe it is important. It will be done and will have a major impact. This laboratory was the first in Ireland to be accredited to ISO 17025 standard and it continues to maintain that accreditation status.
There was further expansion of the testing capacity of the pesticide control service in 2003 to permit it to assess applications for the authorisation of plant protection and biocidal products in a timely manner for the risks arising for humans, animals and the environment. The staff has increased by 16% since the beginning of last year and a further eight people will be recruited over the next year. Given the investment made, the equipment that has been purchased and the productivity and performance that operates there, high standards have been achieved. We accept there are negatives in the report. We addressed some of them immediately and we are addressing others. By and large, we are as good as any other member state in terms of performance.
The previous mission was carried out in 1998 and six recommendations arose from it. One of them was addressed in the intervening five-year period and two were partly addressed. However, it appears that nothing was done about three of them. Does the Minister agree this is scarcely a timely method of dealing with this problem? While I accept that the report on animal products is not part of today's question, because it only appeared yesterday, it is an extremely serious and negative report. Products are not tested for nitrofurans, for example. There was a question earlier about the import of beef and poultry from South America. Nitrofurans have been found in poultry from South America but we do not test for them in this country. What type of confidence does this inspire in the consumer and the exporter?
Obviously we operate to the highest international standards and best practice. The FVO is there to ensure that happens. As we make investments in human, technical and physical resources, it is obvious we are committed to improving facilities and increasing performance. Performance has been increased by 240%. We are mindful and take account of the recommendations in the FVO report. We have already implemented some of the recommendations and we were in the process of implementing others before the inspection. However, that would not be taken account of during the inspection and probably would not have been obvious to the inspectors from the FVO. On that basis, people can be assured we are working to achieve the highest standards and to eliminate any doubt in the testing process. We will continue to work to achieve that.
There is a serious concern for our export market if we persist in failing to address these issues. I welcome the Minister's commitment to enhanced resources and supports and the recruitment of new staff. That is particularly relevant to the life products and meat. There are also issues regarding the co-ordination of the residue testing process. There are six or seven laboratories but some of them are not accredited. One private laboratory that is used is not accredited. There are issues that must be addressed with regard to consumer protection and confidence both at home and in our export market. This information is on the EUROPA website and is available internationally. It does nothing to inspire confidence when it is so negative.