Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 6 Dec 2005

Vol. 611 No. 4

Adjournment Debate.

Hospital Services.

I want to put the case for a CT scanner in the Portlaoise General Hospital, also known as the Midland Regional Hospital, Portlaoise. Has funding been provided in the 2006 Estimates for such a scanner? Recently, Estimates providing for record levels of funding have been approved by this House. I specifically direct my questions to the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children so they will not be re-directed to the HSE. When the Tánaiste presented her Estimates as part of the overall Estimates process, she must have known the composition of the figures. From the point of view of people in County Laois, it will not be sufficient to claim it is a matter for the HSE. Either proposals have been brought and funding provided for a CT scanner in Portlaoise or they have not. I hope the Estimates, when they are produced, are based on factual information rather than providing for matters that may or may not transpire.

Significant improvements have been made in recent years at Portlaoise General Hospital. It now has an excellent paediatric unit and the year on year growth in the number of births in the hospital is a sign of increased activity. Next year, the accident and emergency department will move to a new unit, for which funding has already been put in place. In recent days, people in Portlaoise have been told that the final €600,000 of the more than €4 million needed to equip the new unit has been provided. In the coming months, work will commence on a much improved accident and emergency facility for Portlaoise General Hospital.

However, a CT scanner, which is a vital ingredient, will be missing. Of the three hospitals in the HSE midland regions, Tullamore and Mullingar have CT scanners but Portlaoise does not. I understand Tullamore also has a MRI scanner.

Each week, between 20 and 25 people have to be transported by ambulance from Portlaoise to Tullamore for CT scans. In some cases, the patients involved are in a post-operative state and in the intensive care unit. In addition to the ambulance crew and nurse who accompany most patients, those travelling from the intensive care unit may require the presence of an anaesthetist if they are under anaesthetic. While all these staff are taking patients to and from Tullamore, they are not available in Portlaoise for emergency medical cover. This has compromised the emergency medical services in County Laois because, on a daily basis, ambulance crews have been tied up with the transport of patients for routine CT scans which should be available in Portlaoise.

Approximately 1,000 journeys are made from Portlaoise to Tullamore for scans and, at an estimated cost of €500 per trip, they cost €500,000 per year. That amount would help to pay for a CT scanner in Portlaoise. While a CT radiographer would also be needed, the modest sums involved would provide for a better health service in Laois and neighbouring counties. I want the Tánaiste to confirm whether such a sum is included in the Estimates for 2006 and to tell me when a definitive answer will be given with regard to funding. It would make no sense if €4 million is invested in a new accident and emergency unit next year if funding for a CT scanner follows two or three years later. Next year is the time to provide all these facilities within the new accident and emergency unit in Portlaoise and I call on the Tánaiste to provide the funds.

I am taking this matter on behalf of my colleague, the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney.

Under the Health Act 2004, the Health Service Executive has the responsibility to manage and deliver or arrange to be delivered on its behalf health and personal social services. The introduction of additional CT scanners to the public health system, including at the Midland Regional Hospital, Portlaoise, is a matter for the HSE in the context of its management of the health capital programme.

The Tánaiste recently announced capital funding of €578.5 million in 2006 to facilitate further improvements to the health infrastructure nationally. This will allow progress through planning, construction or equipping stages for various projects and will also allow for continued significant investment in the important area of minor capital across all health care programmes.

The Department has been advised by the HSE midland area that there are currently no CT scanning facilities available at Portlaoise hospital. Currently, CT scanning services required by patients attending Portlaoise are provided at the Midland Regional Hospital in Tullamore. The national hospitals office of the HSE has advised the Department that the procurement of a CT scanner for Portlaoise has been prioritised in the context of any capital allocation of funding for the midland area in 2006.

Sugar Industry Reform.

As the next two matters are being taken together, each Deputy has five minutes and the Minister or Minister of State has ten minutes to reply.

It is surprising to see a Fianna Fáil backbencher raising an Adjournment matter when he should have other access to the powers that be with regard to such circumstances.

The decision of the EU Council of Ministers to overhaul the Irish sugar industry poses serious questions about the negotiating position of the Minister for Agriculture and Food in those talks. I am disappointed that she is not present. I call on her to make a full statement on the stance she took in negotiating the Irish position. It seems the negotiations were concluded too easily and, once talk of compensation started filtering through, it appears the towel was already thrown in.

Workers in the Mallow plant deserve a full and frank account from the Minister as to her negotiating stance. In the past few weeks, we have heard nothing from her about the impending plight of workers. We are told the Irish sugar industry will get a compensation package worth €310 million under a deal. What percentage of that compensation package will go to the workers? The Minister must make some of the €44 million special assistance package available for workers.

The decision to wipe out a whole industry with the stroke of a pen in Brussels surely poses questions about the nature of our relationship with the EU. North Cork has seen the steady erosion of its industrial base in the past two years. The future for food production in this region looks unsteady. This issue has to be addressed by the Government. It is not enough to state we have become victims of global trends. We have always been model Europeans. The manner in which these proposals were rammed through further undermines our manufacturing base. Is this the model of European integration and social solidarity that we signed up to in 1973?

Furthermore, against the background of rapidly rising oil prices and our obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, there is a stronger case than ever for exploring the biofuel option. We must consider alternative products for the Mallow plant to manufacture.

The facilities exist within the Mallow plant to produce biofuel. We must put in place a viable alternative to ensure production continues within the Mallow plant, which has the capability to produce alternative fuel. I am calling on the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to extend the biofuels mineral oil tax relief scheme to allow for greater tax relief on the production of biofuels.

This year alone the Government has failed to comply with the European Commission directive on the development of alternative fuel sources, which aimed for all EU states to ensure biofuels make up a minimum of 2% of their fuel mix by the end of 2005. The Government has opted instead for a 0.06% biofuels target for the same period. We have the wherewithal and resources to produce such a fuel in Mallow. Now is the time to act, in advance of the final overhaul of the sugar regime.

The Minister must tell us clearly whether she thinks Mallow sugar factory will be producing sugar beyond 2008 and whether that decision hinges on whether the IFA will accept the compensation package. Furthermore. Mallow has produced sugar since 1933, 40 years before we joined the Common Market and 40 years before a subsidy was ever paid to a beet grower. Why is it not possible now to produce beet in light of a change to the sugar regime? Are we to assume that if the profit margin to beet growers is not high enough in a changed regime, they will opt instead for the compensation package and cease production of beet?

The Minister must tell us whether she has directed Greencore to state whether the compensation package will be more beneficial to it in financial terms through closure or whether it is more feasible to keep the show on the road.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for giving us the opportunity of discussing this important item. For many people, it is not easy to make a living from farming in the Ireland of 2005. The price of beef hovers at a dangerously low level, so much so that many farmers barely break even when selling beef. The latest development in Irish farming is the eradication of the Irish sugar beet industry following the decision of the European Council of Ministers to cut the price of sugar beet by 36%. Such a slashing of income means that farmers who make their livelihood from sugar beet production must now kiss that livelihood goodbye. As with beef imports, Irish farmers are being pushed aside to make way for cheap sugar cane from countries such as Brazil. They cannot hope to compete with countries whose production costs are vastly less than in European countries such as Ireland.

What seems to be forgotten by Ministers in Europe discussing economics is that at the heart of farming lie families and a way of life that is very important to nations such as Ireland. Some 3,700 farming families will be affected by the loss of the beet-producing sector in Ireland. That sector has existed since 1925 when engineers in Carlow began to mark out ground for what was to become the Carlow sugar factory. The development of other factories at Mallow, Thurles and Tuam proved that high quality sugar could be produced economically in Ireland from home grown material. It gave farmers the opportunity to diversify their production and gave them much-needed income.

Now, sugar beet production in Ireland, which has been a part of our history since shortly after the foundation of the State, has been signed away for a compensation package of €145 million. The upset at the destruction of the Irish beet sector was voiced recently in my constituency when hundreds of angry farmers met in Cahir. Many of them, from all over the beet-growing areas, including Wexford, Laois-Offaly, Carlow and Tipperary, implored the Minister to do something about their livelihood.

The Minister of State is in the enviable position of having discretion in the allocation of that European compensation fund and I appeal to him to consider as his first priority the 3,700 farming families which have recently seen their beet-producing days ended by the stroke of a pen in Europe. If any other sector had lost a similar number of jobs in one fell swoop, the Government would have responded with great urgency, not with the non-committal attitude that it reserves for farmers. Some 1,500 non-farmers employed in the sugar beet sector in Ireland will also shortly find themselves jobless. This is the bleak situation that must be considered by the Minister for Agriculture and Food when choices are being made about the allocation of the €145 million EU compensation package. The beet farmers who, at the end of the day, are the ones who will suffer most from this latest disaster must be properly and responsibly looked after by the Government.

I ask the Minister of State to clarify his intentions in respect of the distribution of the €145 million EU compensation package provided to compensate for the loss of the Irish sugar beet sector and to give his views on the viability of farming in Ireland in the future.

I thank Deputies Sherlock and Hayes for raising this important issue. The recent agreement by the Council of Agriculture Ministers on reform of the EU sugar regime was the culmination of a protracted and difficult negotiating process. I am satisfied that the outcome from Ireland's perspective was the best possible deal in the circumstances.

The reasons reform of the sugar regime could no longer be postponed are well known. As well as the increasing internal EU pressures to bring sugar into line with the other agricultural sectors, there were also strong international pressures. These fell under three main headings: the everything but arms agreement, EBA, the WTO Doha round of trade negotiations and the ruling by the WTO panel against aspects of the EU sugar regime, following a complaint by Brazil, Thailand and Australia. The recent decision by the WTO arbitrator that the EU must implement the panel ruling by next May added to the pressure for early action. There was considerable support for the ambition of the UK Presidency to achieve political agreement ahead of this month's WTO ministerial meeting in Hong Kong. In any event, the sugar regime in its current form expires at the end of June 2006 so there was need for an early decision on future arrangements to avoid a legal vacuum from next July.

While it is over a year since the Commission first outlined its thinking on the future shape of the sugar regime, the formal legislative proposals only emerged at the end of June 2005. These proposals turned out to be even more severe than anybody had anticipated and they went even further than the Commission had initially envisaged.

From the outset, the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, availed of every opportunity to highlight the serious repercussions that the reform proposals would have for the Irish industry. Beet growing has long been a valuable cash crop for Irish farmers, as well as playing an important role in the tillage cycle as a break crop. In Brussels, Ireland played an active role in a group of 11 member states which had common cause in opposing the Commission's proposals. With her ministerial colleagues from these countries the Minister made joint submissions to the Agriculture Commissioner, the most recent one just before the formal discussions of the proposals at the October Council meeting. Furthermore, the Minister engaged, as did our officials, in an intensive round of discussions with the Commission, the Presidency and other member states with a view to modifying the proposals to take account of Ireland's particular circumstances.

On 24 November, after three days of intensive negotiations in Brussels, the Minister had to make a judgment on what was the best possible deal for Ireland, taking account of the negotiating positions being adopted by other member states. The outcome of the negotiations represents the best possible deal that could have been achieved and is a considerable improvement on the Commission's initial proposals of last June.

From Ireland's perspective, the main features of the agreement, as already announced, are a lower reduction in the support price of sugar than originally proposed — 36% instead of 39%, a phasing in of the corresponding reduction in the minimum sugar beet price over four years instead of the two-step reduction originally proposed, an increased rate of compensation for beet growers of up to 64% of the price reduction to be paid in the form of direct payments worth approximately €121 million to Irish beet growers over the next seven years, a once-off payment worth almost €44 million exclusively for beet growers in the event that sugar beet production ceases in Ireland, and an aid package of up to €145 million for the economic, social and environmental costs of restructuring of the Irish sugar industry involving factory closure and renunciation of quota.

The entire compensation package has an estimated value in excess of €300 million. It will be a matter for beet growers and Irish Sugar Limited to make decisions about sugar beet growing in light of the reformed sugar regime.

Has the Minister any say in the matter?

I will come to that point presently.

She does not want it.

In the event that sugar production ceases in Ireland, a once-off payment of almost €44 million would be available for growers. In addition, the restructuring fund of up to €145 million would become available to provide compensation for the economic, social and environmental costs arising from factory closure. The agreement provides that at least 10% of the fund shall be reserved for sugar beet growers and machinery contractors to compensate notably for losses arising from investment in specialised machinery. This amount may be increased by member states after consultation with interested parties as long as the financial breakdown of the elements of the restructuring plan is kept balanced according to a sound economic proposal.

The formal legal texts giving effect to the agreement will be adopted by the Council of Ministers early next year after the opinion of the European Parliament has been received. The Commission will then come forward with proposals for detailed implementation rules. Pending the adoption of the relevant regulations, it is not possible to give definitive information but, as with the earlier phases of the Common Agricultural Policy reform, my Department will make timely arrangements for implementing the new regime in due course.

In reply to Deputy Sherlock, my Department has been working closely with the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, to bring forward proposals as quickly as possible in the biofuels area. I am sure the Minister for Finance will take a direct interest in further exemption of the excise area. Deputy Hayes referred to a recent angry meeting of farmers in Cahir. I, along with all my fellow public representatives, will attend a similar public meeting on Saturday night in Wexford.

The Minister of State will not get out of that as easily.

EU Directives.

The pig and poultry industries account for 6% of total nitrogen usage and 10% of total phosphate usage in Irish agriculture. In 2002, the Department of Agriculture and Food published a report, Eco-Friendly Farming, which noted that in regard to the rural environment protection scheme, which had been in place since 1994, we had gone far beyond the minimum level of compliance required under the EU scheme at that time. The Department made its own admission in that regard and acknowledged that there was a high level of enforcement in Ireland. On that basis, the proposals on the nitrates directives go beyond what was set out in the REPS plans and the good farming practice guidelines. They also go beyond Teagasc's green book which was last revised in 2004.

I am disappointed that nobody from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government thought it worthwhile to come to the House to respond to these issues. That Department has clearly gone to ground on this matter. Why has it gone further than the scientific basis provided by Teagasc? The recommendation on the phosphorous threshold rests at a P index of three on the basis of REPS plans, the good farming practice codes and the Teagasc green book. The new recommendations reduce this level to a P index of two. In regard to phosphorous, a farmer could in the past choose to operate either on an index of two or three. It was up to the farmer and based on the type of farming practice. For example, a farmer who wanted early grass would opt for a P index of three.

At last week's meeting of the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food, Mr. Tom Quinlivan from the Department of Agriculture and Food said that practically everything set out in the table regarding the P index corresponds with Teagasc recommendations. He went on:

As I said, some elements were introduced to bring clarity and allow for enforcement. There were some amendments but they were generally minor and reflect the Teagasc recommendations.

Last Friday, however, Dr. Seamus Crosse, the chief technical officer of Teagasc, sent an internal memo to the Departments of Agriculture and Food and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, stating that Teagasc would not be in a position to substantiate this report legally or otherwise. This is based on what Mr. Quinlivan had said earlier in the week at the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food.

The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government rejects that letter from Dr. Crosse on the basis that it did not come from the director of Teagasc. The reality, however, is that the Department has cooked the books on the issue of the nitrates directive and is not prepared to provide any shred of scientific evidence to support the restrictions it proposes under the nitrates directive. As they stand, the proposals will make every REPS plan illegal. REPS is supposed to be the benchmark for good farming practice and in terms of environmental protection. However, all that is being thrown out the window along with all the scientific evidence Teagasc has to back it up. Figures are now being plucked out of the sky by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. There is no scientific evidence to support its position. Teagasc has stated clearly that it has not provided the scientific evidence to support these proposals and is withdrawing its support.

It is unbelievable that representatives of both Departments have acknowledged that pig and poultry producers will have a significant problem early next year with the transition from the current system to the new one as set out by the nitrates directives. However, nobody is prepared to do anything about it or provide any flexibility. It is a damning indictment of both Departments.

I thank Deputy Naughten for raising this issue. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, would like to thank him and apologise for his absence. The nitrates directive was adopted on 12 December 1991. It has the objective of protecting waters against pollution from agricultural sources, with the primary emphasis on the management of livestock manure and other fertilisers.

The European Court of Justice delivered a judgment in March 2004 that Ireland was non-compliant with the directive by reason mainly of failing to establish an action programme, including regulations to protect waters against pollution by farming. After lengthy negotiations and consultations with all relevant interests and partners in farming organisations, Ireland's national action programme under the nitrates directive was formally submitted to the European Commission on 29 July 2005. In October, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, together with the Department of Agriculture and Food jointly issued a consultation paper regarding draft regulations to give legal effect to the action programme.

A total of 76 submissions have since been received from a wide range of stakeholders. Both Departments have reviewed these submissions and the possibility of amending the regulations is being pursued with the European Commission. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government expects to make the final regulations this month. This will allow Ireland to pursue its case for a derogation with the European Commission and other member states.

Ireland's original proposal for a derogation from the general livestock manure limit laid down in the directive, 170 kg of nitrogen per hectare per year, was submitted to the Commission in November 2004. This has now been updated and submitted informally. Our proposal is designed to allow certain farmers to operate, under appropriate conditions and controls, up to a level of 250 kg. The scope of the derogation being sought will cater not only for intensive dairy farmers, but also specifically for grassland holdings importing manure from intensive pig and poultry farms. Officials from the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Agriculture and Food will give an initial presentation on Ireland's case for a derogation to the EU nitrates committee on 12 December next, with the aim of securing agreement on a derogation by mid-2006. The Minister, Deputy Roche, is aware of the concerns which have been expressed about the pig and poultry sectors. He has had a series of meetings with the farming organisations to discuss the concerns of all farmers and the challenges which arise from the directive. The fertilisation standards for phosphorus proposals to the regulation are firmly based on Teagasc's nutrient advice.

The Government has put proposals to the Commission which will mean that pig and poultry farmers will be eligible for the first time for grant aid for additional manure storage facilities. The level of grant aid, which is being increased for all farmers, will be as high as 70% in some counties. The Minister for Agriculture and Food has announced her intention to introduce a scheme to support the demonstration of new technologies, such as anaerobic and aerobic digestion systems, to help the agriculture sector to meet the requirements of the nitrates directive. The purpose of the scheme is to look at new and emerging technologies for the treatment of livestock manure, particularly from the pig and poultry sectors.

The Government recognises the importance for pig and poultry farmers of having land on which they can spread manure. Other farmers need to recognise that the various forms of manure are valuable nutrients which can be used to replace expensive chemical fertilisers. Farmers can help themselves and each other by using manure. I understand that the Minister for Agriculture and Food will ask Teagasc shortly to undertake an active promotion campaign to demonstrate the nutrient value of slurry and the savings that farmers can achieve by using it instead of chemical fertiliser. The Minister, Deputy Roche, has asked me to reiterate that Teagasc fully assisted in the preparation and development of the fertilisation tables contained in the draft regulations. On 21 November last, Teagasc provided observations on the draft regulations which did not address or call into question the proposed phosphorus standards. The fertilisation standards proposed in the regulations are agronomically sound and will support optimum crop yields while providing the necessary environmental safeguards.

There has been some confusion about the precedent set in the Dutch rules and regulations on fertilisation standards for the purposes of the nitrates directive. The standards operating in the Netherlands have a proper legal basis in that country and are not merely recommendations or guidelines. I understand that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government spoke today to the director of Teagasc, who confirmed that Teagasc's information on the non-binding nature of the application limits in the Netherlands was based on a non-final draft of the Dutch regulations. Teagasc has since confirmed that the fertiliser limits in the finalised Dutch regulations are mandatory. Teagasc will write to the Minister to confirm that this is also its understanding of the matter.

It is a disgrace that the Minister was not prepared to come to the House.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.05 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 7 December 2005.
Top
Share