Vol. 614 No. 6
1 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the legal entitlements to the €145 million sugar restructuring fund; the procedure for the relinquishing of sugar quota; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6242/06]
In the event of a decision to cease sugar production in Ireland, a restructuring fund of up to €145 million becomes available for the economic, social and environmental costs of restructuring the Irish sugar industry. The fund is subject to the submission of a detailed restructuring plan for the industry involving factory closure and the renunciation of sugar quota.
Since the necessary EU legislation has not yet been adopted, it is not possible to make a definitive statement about entitlements under the fund or the procedures for renouncing quota. The political agreement on reform of the EU sugar regime provides that at least 10% of the restructuring fund shall be reserved for sugar beet growers and machinery contractors to compensate notably for losses arising from investment in specialised machinery. That proportion may be increased by member states after consultation with interested parties provided an economically sound balance between the elements of the restructuring plan is ensured.
The final legal texts giving effect to the reform agreement could not be considered and approved by the Council of Ministers until the opinion of the European Parliament had been received. That opinion was delivered on 19 January and it is anticipated that the legal texts will be ready for approval by the Council of Agriculture Ministers next week. Meanwhile, the European Commission is working on the preparation of detailed implementation rules which can only be finalised once the Council texts have been adopted. This will be a complex measure to implement and until all the various legal texts have been adopted, it will not be possible to provide details of the definitive implementation arrangements.
I congratulate the new Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, and wish her the best of luck in her new position. I look forward to working with her. I now have two women to handle so it will be twice as difficult.
The Deputy has three.
Deputy Upton will be on my side in that case. The spokesperson for the Minister was quoted in The Irish Times last week as saying that specific percentages were left out of the €145 million for each of the stakeholders, including workers and Greencore. Can the Minister clarify that?
Greencore is quoted last week as stating it has a clear legal entitlement to compensation under the €145 million fund. Can she clarify that?
Who owns the quota? The Minister has told the House in the past that it is a production system that nobody owns. Why then is the EU buying back quota from member states? In that context what rights and entitlements have farmers who purchased quota in the past number of years?
What is attributable to a spokesperson is not necessarily what is printed. Under the package put forward there will be a single farm payment, which will be made available to the farmers. There will be a special fund of €44 million for farmers for diversification. At least 10% of the €145 million will be available to the contractors and farmers. There is nothing specific about workers.
Greencore has a legal entitlement. The determination of that entitlement cannot be decided until the legal text has been passed and other methodologies put in place.
The Deputy himself answered the question on who owns the quota, because it is a system. The European Union is quenching quota, not buying it back, and those sugar companies which wish to remain in production will pay a levy to do so.
A proposal has been put to me by the IFA concerning losses attributable to the changes that have taken place. It has set its stall out on what it considers the losses to be and the purchase of quota will be taken into consideration in determining that figure.
Is the Minister saying farmers who bought quota will be considered a special category?
No.
The Commissioner is quoted on a number of occasions as saying the Commission will buy back quota. Can the Minister clarify that? If it is buying back quota the question of ownership arises.
Has she clarified Greencore's entitlement to compensation? Will the levy the Minister mentioned have to be paid in the current year, should sugar production continue in 2006?
I did not say farmers who purchased quota were a special case. I said farmers put forward a case for €106 million and have employed a specialist to do that on their behalf. The proposal will be evaluated in due course. Equally, Greencore has put together an evaluation of its view of its entitlements, which will also be determined in due course.
How much is Greencore looking for?
More.
It is more than €106 million?
The entitlement will be determined in a fair, balanced and transparent way under certain procedures and with permission from the Commission. The Commission is not buying back quota but asking sugar manufacturers to renounce quota, so taking the quota out of the system altogether.
There is over-production of sugar and there are pricing problems and, as the Deputy knows, a WTO panel decision went against the European Union. Those are the reasons why we had to reform the sugar industry in the first place.
I travelled to Brussels last Thursday morning to meet with the Commissioner to seek clarification on a number of issues. It is, after all, a package worth €310 million. I received clarification on a number of issues. The requirement to deliver beet in the year preceding the year of quota renunciation has been removed, which was very important. I worked with farmers to determine the reference years for entitlement to single farm payments and I believe we have made the right decision. I also received clarification that sugar produced in the first year of the reform will be liable for the restructuring levy but, in the event of the quota being renounced for the second year, the levy will not be payable in that or subsequent years.
There are often misquotes so I will clarify further. The levy, €25 million this year, depends on whether sugar is produced this year, which will determine whether we grow sugar.
2 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food her views on whether a guarantee that equivalent standards apply in a non-EU country is equivalent to the standards that apply in EU countries with regard to traceability; the action she has taken to determine the exact nature of, and the degree of compliance with, such standards as are guaranteed by a non-EU country, for example, Brazil, with respect to traceability; the number of farm visits the EU veterinary inspectorate has carried out during trips to South American and Asian countries during each year since 2000; the results of those visits as they have been communicated to her Department; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6084/06]
As a member of the EU and the World Trade Organisation Ireland is in a position to avail of opportunities for trade that are essential for the development of our open economy. Membership of these organisations also brings reciprocal trade obligations. The principle is that imported animal products meet standards at least equivalent to those required for production in, and trade between, member states. All such imports must come from third countries or areas of third countries that have been approved by the EU authorities for export to the EU.
Irish farmers are required to ensure their production systems and farm practices fully comply with a wide range of EU directives on important matters including traceability, animal health and welfare and consumer protection. I fully support, therefore, the policy that animal products imported into the EU from third countries meet standards at least equivalent to those required for production in, and trade between, EU member states. Indeed the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, has been in contact with the European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, Mr. Markos Kyprianou, on this point and on the related point of labelling.
The Commissioner has made it clear that the Commission will not hesitate to take the appropriate protection measures if a product imported from a third country or produced in the domestic market represents a risk for the health of EU consumers, livestock or plants. He pointed out that the Commission's adoption of restrictive measures with regard to the finding of residues of unauthorised substances in poultry meat and the quick and proportionate protective measures applied to imports of beef as a result of the recent outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in Brazil demonstrate the Commission's primary objective of maintaining the high sanitary status of the Community and respecting the EU's commitment under the WTO agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures. All measures adopted by the Community on import restrictions for human or animal health reasons are discussed and agreed at meetings of the standing committee on animal health and the food chain. Senior veterinarians from all member states attend these meetings. In terms of the foot and mouth outbreak in Argentina, for example, the standing committee yesterday adopted a Commission proposal to ban imports of meat from the Corrientes region of Argentina.
The Minister of State's time has concluded.
He should learn to speak more quickly.
I am sometimes accused of speaking too quickly.
I congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Wallace, on her new portfolio and look forward to working with her. The name "Mary" must have something to do with agriculture.
I may change my middle name by deed poll.
The Deputy is welcome in Fianna Fáil at any time.
I thank the Minister for that. Perhaps the Minister of State did not have time to fully reply to what I consider to be an important part of my original question, that is, the number of foreign visits carried out by the veterinary inspectorate and, specifically, the number of trips made to South American and Asian countries each year since 2000. I am trying to clarify the correlation in terms of levels of inspection between exporting South American countries and the expectations of EU countries.
When the Minister of State stated "that it is a requirement that animal products imported in third countries meet standards at least equivalent to those required for production in and trade between member states", he rehearsed a reply given to two questions I asked in December. However, the Minister seemed to contradict that in December when she noted: "with respect to traceability and controls of residues of veterinary medicines, the purpose of EU legislation is not to impose on exporting third countries a system of guarantees that is equal to the EU system." I am confused as to the difference between these two answers and the implications thereof but perhaps the Minister of State will clarify the matter.
Since 2000, six audits were carried out in Brazil, as well as a further audit at the end of 2005 regarding which European Commission officials are still in consultation with Brazilian authorities. My recollection is that four audits were carried out in Argentina.
With regard to the operation of EU controls on exports from Brazil, an FVO inspection to evaluate animal health and public health control systems and the traceability and certification procedures in place in that country has recently been carried out. Arising from this the Commission presented a proposal to the standing committee on the food chain and animal health yesterday to address some of the shortcomings in the Brazilian animal traceability system identified by the FVO. These additional certification requirements are designed to demonstrate that no contact has occurred between animals of different or lower health status, vaccinated animals and meat from areas where there is no vaccination programme is also identified and meat for export to the EU is derived only from deboned and matured meat from areas free of the foot and mouth virus. That standing committee, which continues to meet, is also considering other issues.
A play on words is created by the line "the purpose of EU legislation is not to impose on exporting third countries a system of guarantees that is equal to the EU system." Absolute clarity and strong systems are needed in terms of the standards we expect and demand in the European Union. How do we ensure that no risks arise from the beef imported from South American countries? The foot and mouth crisis in that region produced banner headlines and we do not want to face that issue again.
The application of standards in the member states of the European Union is monitored by the FVO, which has total confidence in that area. Inspections are carried out by that body to ensure that the relevant standards are adhered to.
3 Mr. Connolly asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food her proposals to address the threat posed to pig and poultry farming and mushroom production by the maximum nitrogen and phosphorus fertiliser limits of the nitrates directive; the predicament of County Monaghan pig and poultry farmers and mushroom producers in terms of having to dispose of surpluses of over 100,000 tonnes of poultry litter, 90,000 tonnes of spent mushroom compost, 150,000 tonnes of pig slurry and residual materials from public sewerage works; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6082/06]
The implementation of the nitrates directive is a matter in the first instance for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, who recently introduced regulations to give legal effect to Ireland's national action programme under the directive.
In the context of the nitrates directive, it is not possible to talk in terms of the disposal of surplus manure. An underlying principle of the directive is nutrient balance, which means that nutrients may be spread on land only to the extent that they will be taken up by crops. I am aware this has implications for pig and poultry producers in particular, as they generally will not have enough land of their own to utilise the manures that their activities generate. Considerable efforts have already been made to alleviate the impact of the nitrates regulations on the pig and poultry industries and to help farmers in meeting their obligations.
A significant concession was secured in December, just before the regulations were finalised, when the European Commission recognised that 80% of the country's pigs are produced in units licensed by the EPA under the integrated pollution control directive. As a result, the regulations provide that the EPA must review all licences by October 2007 but that, in the meantime, these producers will not be bound by the provisions of the nitrates regulations on nutrient management. This means that, until a producer's licence has been reviewed by the EPA, he or she can continue to operate under the terms of the existing licence. It also means the farmers taking producers' slurry will be able to operate under their existing nutrient management plans. This provides a vital window for the larger pig producers to adapt to the new regulations, for example, by finding additional spread lands, modifying their feeding regimes or acquiring new machinery for separating solids and liquids.
My officials are in negotiations with the European Commission on a revised farm waste management scheme and I met the Commissioner last week to emphasise the importance of the matter. The revision of the scheme will make it available for the first time to pig and poultry producers. Among the proposed improvements is an increase in the grant rate for both animal housing and slurry storage from the current rate of 40% to 60%, with 70% being available in some counties. Other elements of the scheme will include significantly higher investment ceilings and the removal of any minimum income requirement from the scheme.
Given that pig and poultry manure is high in phosphorus, there will be a limit to the amount of land on which it can be spread. The most suitable outlet for this kind of manure is tillage land.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
There is more than enough tillage land in the country to utilise all the pig and poultry manure but I am conscious that not all producers have tillage land available nearby. The high liquid content of pig manure makes it expensive to transport. Pig producers should, therefore, start looking seriously at technology for separating solids and liquids. Subject to Commission approval of the new farm waste management scheme, I plan to offer grant aid for that kind of technology. I also urge other farmers to show solidarity with pig and poultry producers by taking their manure instead of using chemical fertiliser. I have asked Teagasc to undertake a promotion campaign to demonstrate the nutrient value of slurry and the savings that farmers can achieve by substituting it for chemical fertiliser. I am also urging REPS planners to encourage their clients to use pig manure on their farms.
Most of the controversy in recent days has centred on the nutrient management provisions of the regulations. These were finalised following difficult negotiations with the Commission's scientific experts, with both Departments making use of the advice provided by Teagasc. It was the Commission, however, which determined the final content of the regulations. Teagasc has recently indicated that it may be possible to review part of the advice it had given on the application of phosphorus in a way that could improve the effectiveness of the regulations. The Government and the European Commission saw merit in allowing Teagasc time to elaborate this new advice and, accordingly, the Minister, Deputy Roche, announced a brief de facto deferral of the implementation of part 3 of the regulations. Teagasc has been requested to provide, as a matter of urgency, the necessary scientific case to support any revision of the phosphorus tables in the regulations. The two Departments will carefully consider any submission received from Teagasc, while also bearing in mind that any proposals for revision of the phosphorus tables will have to respect the environmental requirements associated with the nitrates directive and meet with the agreement of the European Commission.
Teagasc has not been specifically requested to review its advice on nitrogen issues. However, if its revised submission on crop nutrient requirements suggests further beneficial adjustments to the regulatory regime, these will of course be considered. The possibility of such further adjustments will also depend on their respecting the environmental requirements involved and on their acceptance by the European Commission. The disposal of residual materials from public sewerage works is not a matter for my Department.
I too congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Wallace. We will soon have plenty of agricultural expertise outside north Dublin. I regret that I did not hear the remainder of the Minister's reply because I hoped it would deal in more depth with the issues of chicken litter and mushroom compost. I am sure that she is aware of the disagreements between the IFA and Teagasc and that the former has withdrawn from partnership talks as a direct result of its unhappiness with the nitrates decision. Yesterday, the secretary to the IFA, Mr. Jim Devlin, told a European committee meeting that there would be detrimental consequences for the intensive farming industry.
I refer specifically to the pig, poultry, mushroom and grain producers where, because of the interdependency that exists in those sectors, knock-on effects are created when difficulties arise. Issues also arise for tillage farmers, who said they will not be able to store the nutrients they are expected to spread on their land. All the groups concerned will experience significant difficulties in the future. What assurances for the future can the Minister give to pig producers? With poultry and mushroom producers, they represent the lifeblood of my Cavan-Monaghan constituency. She raised the issue of finding land on which to spread the manure but the land is not available and farmers must depend on the good-will of third parties. However, no farmer will be able to take slurry or chicken litter.
With regard to short-term derogations, it took Denmark and the Netherlands two years to receive their derogations. Currently, Austria is also seeking a derogation. I welcome the Minister's comments on these matters.
The Deputy has raised a number of issues. I appreciate the problems in the Cavan-Monaghan area, although that is not to detract from the other parts of the world that have issues with the pig and poultry sector. The Minister of State and I have met the Monaghan people on a number of occasions. There are a number of problems, the first of which is a lack of information. This is a major problem which is why I placed an advertisement in the newspapers and I hope, now that Part 3 has been set aside until further information is available, that we can bring this matter to finality as quickly as possible. We need to meet the farmers, talk to them and support them.
In recognition of the pig and poultry sector, I have provided funding this year specifically for new technologies to support both industries, including centrifuge systems to reduce liquid waste, new technologies for chicken litter and a number of other proposals. We have invited proposals from people and are anxious to work with them to ensure that these new schemes will progress. Under the farm waste management scheme, I will provide some funding to the pig industry which will allow it to be recognised for the first time and be supported to the best of our ability.
It is important that farming fraternities work together and that people support each other. Most pig producers have customers and their concern is based on a fear of the customer, that the implications of the directive will be such that they would lose their single farm payment.
They are looking at six months in jail, never mind the single farm payment.
We are doing our best——
We must move onto Question No. 4.
I have a brief question to pose.
We have spent more than seven minutes on this question.
I would have thought——
The Deputy's initial supplementary question took more than three minutes, so we must move on.
Can I ask a very brief question? There was no reference to the mushroom industry and——
I call Question No. 4 in the name of Deputy Crawford.
There are ten new centrifuge technologies but how many of them will be located in the middle of the intensive farming industry?
That will depend. The people in the Deputy's county have met us on a number of occasions. We have also met the Northern Ireland authorities.
We must move on.
There is undoubtedly an opportunity for cross-Border initiatives for that industry and that is the way forward. I have the money, will and support and they are also to be found in Northern Ireland. I believe we can work together and look after the people in Monaghan.
Deputy Connolly was not happy with the north Monaghan proposals.
No, I was not.
He did not even examine them.
I will let the Deputies fight among themselves. The Ceann Comhairle is above all that. He must keep order.
4 Mr. Crawford asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food when the new grant scheme will be available for farm waste management; if she is satisfied with the terms of such a scheme; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6079/06]
The revised farm waste management scheme will be introduced by my Department as soon as the required EU state aid approval has been received. A formal application seeking Commission approval for the revised scheme was submitted on 30 September last. The application has been the subject of ongoing negotiations between the Commission and my Department in the intervening period. A number of outstanding issues remain, in particular the reluctance of the Commission to accept that a period longer than one year is required for completion of all necessary works by Irish farmers. This is the key issue for us given the large volume of work to be undertaken and the particular need to ensure consistency with timescales and deadlines already agreed in the context of Ireland's action programme on implementation of the directive.
Last week I met Commissioner Fischer Boel and explained to her the importance of this issue for Irish farmers and the urgent need for the early introduction of the revised scheme. The Commissioner was positive in her response and I am confident that the outstanding issues can be resolved quickly.
I am satisfied that the new scheme, when introduced, will provide a very satisfactory financial package for Irish farmers who are required to undertake works to comply with the additional requirements of the directive. I have provided a sum of €43 million in this year alone for the scheme and I envisage a total expenditure of close to €250 million to complete the programme. Subject to receipt of the said EU approval, the proposed changes will include the introduction of a standard grant rate of 60%, with 70% being available in the four zone C counties, for both animal housing and slurry storage. The current standard grant rate for such work is 40%. The scheme will be extended to include horses, deer, goats, pigs and poultry, and mushroom compost. The extension of the scheme to the pig and poultry sectors is particularly significant.
The revised scheme will also see an increase in the maximum eligible investment from €75,000 to €120,000 per holding and the removal of any minimum requirement from farming from the scheme so that all small farmers can participate. The scheme also incudes the introduction of a new 40% grant rate for specialised equipment with specific environmental advantages subject to a maximum eligible investment of €80,000 in the case of decanter centrifuge systems and dry feeding systems for pigs and €40,000 in the case of specialised slurry spreading tankers and related equipment. Eligibility for aid under the scheme of earth-lined stores will be included as soon as the technical specifications for such are finalised.
I welcome Deputy Mary Wallace as Minister for State at the Department but I am a little concerned about my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Brendan Smith, who must sit between the two Marys. It may be dangerous.
The Deputy is jealous.
The Minister is dead right.
The Deputy will have to apply to join me.
I appreciate the Minister's response but many farmers are anxious to get ahead with the necessary provision of animal housing. The announcement of the scheme was made on 29 July last. The scheme was not sent to Brussels for approval until 29 September. The Minister has advised that farmers should apply for planning permission but it is difficult to do so without knowing to what types of developments the grant aid will apply. There are no specifications as such for earthen banking, for example, or other types of development.
Does the Minister have any idea when the scheme will be up and running and when farmers will have a simple form to fill out? Will we have a situation similar to that which pertained in the past where there is a 60 page form that will take an enormous amount of time and effort by farmers, or highly paid advisers, to fill out? The Minister said that the scheme will be open to small farmers, those with fewer than 20 livestock units. Has that been finalised? If so, such farmers should not have to pay enormous sums of money to specialist advisers.
I will not be political. It is not like me, so I will rise above it.
The Minister might as well be political. She is like a broken record and has been apolitical every time she has stood up.
I am often more political than Deputy Naughten. Farmers with fewer than 20 livestock units will be included in the scheme. I have seen the forms and the supplementary information, which have been simplified to the best of our ability. I agree with Deputy Crawford that people should not have to pay an exorbitant sum of money to have small jobs done. The documents are ready for the printers, with a view to going very quickly. I hope to have the earthen bank specifications ready in the next few days.
The only impasse we have had on the state aid rule has been a lack of trust on the part of the Commission that the reason we were introducing this scheme over a three-year rather than one-year period was to undermine the directive. I assured the Commissioner that was not the case and that the real reason was that farmers would find it difficult to get people to do the necessary work. I do not want a situation whereby farmers are forced to pay high prices because of tight deadlines when that should not be the case. She has taken on board our genuine concerns. I wrote to her on Friday, following my meeting with her on Thursday, which was very positive and I expect to receive sanction soon. Then we will disseminate the information to everybody as quickly as possible. I have also freed up staff to ensure there will be no delays with inspections and support for farmers.
5 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the value of the potato seed industry here, including separately domestic sales and export sales; if her Department has carried out a study to assess the impact of the proposed genetically modified potato trial on consumer confidence in view of the fact that cross-contamination with genetically modified pollen would not be detected until after an affected non-genetically modified potato crop has been put on the market; and her views on the BASF plan to test genetically modified potatoes in County Meath. [6240/06]
The value of the seed potato industry in 2005 is estimated at €5.8 million and the value of sales of certified seed potatoes on the domestic market in 2005 is estimated at €2.8 million, with exports valued at €170,000.
The notification by BASF to trial genetically modified potatoes was made to the Environmental Protection Agency in accordance with Part B of EU Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment, as transposed into Irish legislation by the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 2003.
While the Department is responsible for developing coexistence arrangements between authorised GM and non-GM crops, it has no role with regard to experimental trials such as the one applied for in County Meath. This is a matter solely for the EPA. Since procedures under legislation are in play it would be inappropriate to comment on this particular application.
There is consumer concern about GMOs. It was for that reason that a series of legislative measures has been adopted by the EU over the past few years to ensure the highest possible standards of food safety are in place and that the environment is fully protected. These legislative measures have been adopted by the co-decision procedure involving the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. Furthermore, the European Food Safety Authority, which was established in 2002, provides independent scientific risk assessment on all GMO applications which should help further to allay consumer concerns.
The legislative measures which the Department is responsible for relate to the placing on the market of authorised feed and the cultivation of GM crops. With regard to the latter, I am in the process of drawing up coexistence measures between GM and non-GM crops in Ireland. I have a report produced by an interdepartmental working group which sets out a strategy and best practices for coexistence arrangements here. I have sought submissions from the public on the report to assist me in drawing up statutory based coexistence controls here in due course.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
In the evaluation of potential GM crops in Ireland, the report identifies the potato as a crop that presents a low risk of gene flow that cannot outcross with any other Irish crop or wild relatives here in Ireland. The report states that the potential for the adventitious presence of non-GM potatoes could only arise if significant numbers of tubers remained in the ground post-harvest which, if not properly managed, could lead to their presence in subsequent crops.
I congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, on her appointment. Given that her constituency is in County Meath, she will start with this hot potato and will not be allowed to drop it, judging by the reaction to the issue I have seen.
Will the Minister of State, Deputy Brendan Smith, acknowledge that the trials of GM potato will not have any economic benefit for Irish farmers or consumers? These trials are wholly for the benefit of the company which wants to advertise worldwide that it grew a crop in a country prone to blight. Will the Minister of State acknowledge that the unpopularity of GM products in third countries, which we rely on for markets, particularly in Irish seed potatoes, will be jeopardised by these trials and Scottish seed potatoes will benefit from Ireland's loss, just as Ireland will benefit from Denmark's loss as a result of the cartoon controversy?
What measures will the Department take to compensate for the damage these trials, which are entirely in BASF's interest but are of no benefit to Irish farmers or consumers, will cause in terms of the marketability of Irish seed potatoes? Almost 80% of our potato market is based on roosters, Kerr's pinks and Rush queens. Irish people buy varieties of potatoes and they certainly do not want to buy GM potatoes.
Deputy Sargent is trying to pre-empt the processing of the application by the Environmental Protection Agency. We have a strong working relationship with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs in Scotland. I spent part of St. Patrick's Day 2005 discussing this issue with the Scottish Minister. We have a good relationship and we both want to ensure we protect our plant health status as a high grade seed area. The Environmental Protection Agency will assess this application based on the stringent procedures already in place that transpose the directive under the statutory instrument of 2003.
We have a national policy on GM technology. Policy statements were issued in October 1999 and October 2000. All of this comes from the co-decision making process of the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, where legislative measures binding on all member states were put in place with the relevant safeguards. That EU-wide regulatory framework applies to genetically modified organisms and we have the most stringent safeguards in the world on GMOs. These are aimed at achieving a high degree of human health and environmental protection while safeguarding consumer choice and ensuring WTO compatibility.
The subsidiarity principle is exercised in matters of coexistence and, as I stated in my reply, the Minister has established an interdepartmental working group and a report has been published. We are seeking submissions from interested groups and individuals and the closing date for submissions has been extended from January to March of this year. Members of this House have already made a submission. The Minister will then set in place the coexistence regulations.
The Minister of State said that stringent measures are already in place but he also said that we still have a draft proceeding so nothing has been finalised.
The European Union regulations have not been finalised.
The coexistence draft regulation has not been finalised and taking Spain as an example, coexistence has resulted in contamination. We have much windier conditions that Spain so we must do more thinking on this before we sign off on those coexistence plans. They are not foolproof.
Will the Minister of State do anything to safeguard the marketability of Irish seed potatoes in the likely event of contamination? The contamination will not be detected until after a crop has been harvested because of the time it takes to manifest itself in the next generation of seed potatoes. The Minister of State cannot offer safeguards unless he takes steps to prevent Ireland going down the GM road, particularly given that it will also jeopardise other farmers.
The protection of our clean, green image is of the utmost importance to the agri-food industry and every step will be taken to ensure food safety and the environment will not be compromised.
We abstained on the measure on Bt maize — they are already compromised.
