Vol. 614 No. 6
6 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the discussions she has had with the EU Commission and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government regarding a derogation under the nitrates directive; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5640/06]
The implementation of the nitrates directive is a matter in the first instance for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The Minister has recently made regulations giving legal effect to Ireland's national action programme under the directive.
The fact the Minister made the regulations enabled Ireland to begin the formal process of seeking approval for a derogation designed to allow certain farmers to operate, under appropriate conditions and controls, up to a level of 250 kilograms of organic nitrogen per hectare per annum. The Department of Agriculture and Food is taking the lead in this matter and, with the support of Teagasc, will continue to work with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government towards achieving a successful outcome.
The process commenced formally at a meeting of the EU nitrates committee in December, when an outline of Ireland's proposal was presented. Detailed discussions between officials of the Departments of Agriculture and Food and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the European Commission took place subsequently. Following these discussions, a detailed scientific argument in support of the proposal was finalised and has been submitted to the Commission.
The proposal will be discussed again at future meetings of the nitrates committee before approval can be obtained. Securing this derogation is vital for the most productive dairy farmers in particular, and it is important the position on the regulations is clarified at an early date so the negotiations on the derogation can proceed.
Has the European Commission's consideration of the derogation been suspended and, if so, on what grounds? Is the Commission satisfied with the scientific evidence Ireland has provided, given that the evidence we provided during discussion of the nitrates directive was, it seems, wholly inadequate? As the Minister will be aware, Teagasc has indicated it is prepared to review nitrogen levels. Has the Minister asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to request Teagasc to review the nitrogen tables in the directive with a view to facilitating discussions taking place on the derogation?
On the derogation, a meeting of the nitrates committee will be held in March. It is unlikely, however, that discussions on a derogation for Ireland will take place on the basis that current discussions on the suspended Part 3 have not concluded. On the scientific evidence provided, Teagasc provides this evidence to my Department and, in particular, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The scientific evidence was submitted on the basis that discussions and negotiations were taking place with the Commission. Some of this evidence was accepted by the Commission and some was not.
I wrote to the chairman of Teagasc several weeks ago requesting that his organisation make available the additional scientific evidence on phosphates which had been brought to my attention. This has appeared in draft form and will be discussed by the Teagasc board on 20 February. I am led to believe the evidence will also cover other issues and these will also be considered, albeit in the context of my specific request for information on phosphates.
The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government commented on Tuesday on what the position would be should robust scientific evidence become available. Deputy Naughten may not wish to hear this but he will eventually remember that the nitrates directive is not my responsibility but that of another Minister. The Minister stated in the House on Tuesday that if robust scientific evidence is made available to him, he will be more than happy to work with me in persuading the Commission to address the issues of concern. I assume the board of Teagasc will notify these to me on Monday.
I am completely lost, having heard so many twists and turns on this issue from the Minister and her colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Has either Minister asked Teagasc to examine the nitrogen tables?
No.
Has Teagasc done work on the nitrogen tables?
Yes.
Will both Departments consider amending the nitrogen tables based on the evidence provided to them by Teagasc?
If the science stands up and the Commission agrees, the tables will be changed. If the Commission does not agree to changes, we will be powerless to proceed. The scientific evidence will be made available on Monday, whereupon it will be evaluated by the two Departments which will, with Teagasc, negotiate with the Commission on that basis.
In other words, the Department has not asked for evidence but if it receives such evidence, it will present it to the Commission. Have discussions on the derogation been suspended?
We will not table a proposal for a derogation in March because it is not considered beneficial to do so.
Is the Minister confident of success in securing a derogation in June?
Yes, we expect to have secured a derogation in the summer. This will depend, however, on whether we can include the matter on the agenda of the next nitrates committee meeting. We will do our utmost to ensure it comes up for discussion.
Is it not the case that failure to agree a derogation in June would have serious repercussions?
The derogation must be dealt with as quickly as possible. We are determined to ensure this is the case and I am positive as regards our chances of success.
7 Ms C. Murphy asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the role Teagasc plays in advising farmers on the use of nitrates; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5702/06]
The role of Teagasc is to provide integrated research, advisory and training services for the agriculture and food industry. It is a matter for Teagasc to determine the most effective means of providing advice on the requirements of the nitrates regulations as they apply to individual holdings. I expect, however, that such advice would be delivered primarily via this existing network. Advisers and consultants in the private sector will provide similar advisory services. The fact the nitrates regulations will specify maximum fertiliser limits means farmers will require advice, in particular about making the maximum use of the nutrients in livestock manure. This is an area in which Teagasc can play a critical role.
Teagasc will also make important contributions in other areas. My Department is in discussions with it about arrangements for the delivery of information for farmers on the practical implications of the regulations. I have also asked Teagasc to undertake a promotion campaign to demonstrate the nutrient value of slurry and savings farmers can achieve by substituting it for chemical fertiliser. It is particularly important for REPS planners, both in Teagasc and the private sector, to encourage their clients to utilise pig manure on their farms. Teagasc will have an important role in ongoing research and undertaking, participating in or contributing to the specific research commitments contained in the nitrates action plan.
I offer my congratulations to the new Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy Mary Wallace. It is interesting that the only mention of women in the run-up to the latest appointments of Ministers of State was in the context of demotion rather than promotion. This is indicative of the fact that journalists are sometimes badly wrong.
While I am not an expert on agriculture, in meetings with farmers I have been impressed by their compelling argument on the issue of nitrates. Teagasc must act in accordance with scientific evidence and the specified limits. Will the nitrates limits give rise to difficulties regarding the use of animal waste and waste from local authority treatment plants? Several years ago, problems arose regarding the means of disposing of rendered meat and bonemeal. Will similar problems occur as a result of the advice Teagasc issues to farmers on the use of animal waste and waste from local authority treatment plants?
Stocking density and nutrient management are matters of concern. Concerns about the disposal of organic fertiliser have arisen in particular sectors, notably the extensive dairy, pig and poultry sectors. The Deputy is correct that farmers will need to work with Teagasc and private advisers to address these concerns and deal with nutrient management. On local authority waste, the use of sludges has been raised in discussions although, as Deputy Naughten should note, the matter is outside my remit.
I am a little hard of hearing.
Deputy Catherine Murphy is correct that concerns have arisen in her constituency, which includes substantial areas of tillage. I seek to provide support for those who have these concerns, including by attempting to ensure they are properly informed, which is unfortunately not the case. We will work with farmers to address their concerns. This is the reason we introduced the farm waste management scheme and a new technology package.
The Minister referred to the dairy sector. Will the derogation be available to pig and poultry farmers? Has Teagasc investigated the possibility of using biomass plants to deal with the problem of waste from poultry, mushroom growing and so forth? We have plenty of land that could take pig manure. Is a genuine effort being made to minimise the red tape of transferring farmyard manure, which is a fertiliser, from pig farmers to grass or tillage farmers? This is the source of greatest anxiety. Those who want to and could accept the manure feel there is too much red tape and it would cause too many difficulties.
For the past three months, I have been saying precisely what the Deputy has been saying, which is that adequate spread lands are available. The concerns of customers of the pig and poultry sector need to be alleviated, which can be done only in the context of a working relationship, which unfortunately does not exist. However, we try to provide the greatest amount of information possible to farmers through CMMS and iMap in order to reduce paperwork and bureaucracy about which people have concerns. Ultimately, regardless of the argument, we must work with the people and support them to the best of our ability.
We have done considerable work on biomass and, during the week, I allocated an additional €2.5 million specifically for these issues to give an overall package of €4.5 million. We are looking at stocking rate effects on grazing, season lengths, nitrates leeching on vulnerable soil types, which is important in the Deputy's constituency, assessment of solid-liquid separation systems for pig manure and the influence of pig diet.
Those actions should have been taken five years ago.
This is based on ongoing research between Teagasc and UCD. We are also considering reliable nutrient management and animal manures. We are considering emissions from land spreading of cattle slurry, cattle wintering facilities and greenhouse gas emissions from beef production systems. All these matters are very important, into which ongoing research is being carried out. The Deputy is right in saying that in some incidences new technologies will represent the answer.
The derogation focuses on the spreading of livestock manure and slurry and seeks to change the level from 170 kg to 250 kg.
As the Minister knows, pig and poultry farmers do not have the land themselves.
I agree they do not have the spread lands, which is one of the issues that people were prepared——
Is it fair to say they cannot get the derogation?
The customer will be the beneficiary. Most pig farmers are not involved in tillage, which is why we need to consider practical steps such as diet. Much work has been done by the dietary experts. Much work has been done on centrifuges and separation. If people are prepared to work with me it may be possible to find other solutions for particular areas in order to transport slurry from one place to the other.
Will the Minister ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he will publish in full the Teagasc advice on nitrates and phosphates so that Teagasc clients can see the differences between the existing REPS and what is recommended in the directive?
We will need to wait to see what the board agrees on Monday regarding the proposal that has been made. Teagasc made the results of the last scientific research available to the public. I assume that once it has been agreed and dealt with, there is no reason it cannot be made available. However, I would need to wait and could not give the Deputy a definitive answer. My assumption is that, as with any scientific evidence, these results would be made available to the public once the deliberations have been completed.
I congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, on her appointment.
While we are very good Europeans, we sometimes jump in as we did in the case of the habitats directive when we designated too many areas. Given that this directive would criminalise farmers and would do considerable damage, would the Minister agree in retrospect that the Teagasc advice, which was meant as a guideline and not as gospel, was taken as such by Government and that it jumped too soon? If the decision were to be taken now, would the Government think differently about the issue?
The Government had 13 years.
We have been talking for a long time. As a medical practitioner, I am sure the Deputy would agree that if he neglected something for 13 years he would be in some trouble. This is where we are and this is the problem. While we can blame whomever we want, ultimately that is the issue. Contrary to what has been said, the advice from Teagasc is the scientific advice to be made available to the State. It is either accepted or not accepted by the Commission. In some cases the Commission would not agree with the scientific advice made available. The directive should have little implication in the Deputy's constituency. I have taken into consideration the concerns——
REPS farmers will be caught.
Let us be careful.
The Minister should not mislead the House.
I am not misleading the House, that is the Deputy's job.
REPS farmers are operating illegally.
Regarding REPS, as has been indicated to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food and to so many people on many occasions — the matter was covered in an article in last week's Farming Independent supplement to the Irish Independent— the 121 threshold is rarely if ever reached by REPS farmers, who usually do not exceed 84.
Their plans are illegal, based on legislation enacted on 1 February.
No, they are not.
The Minister should be allowed to speak without interruption.
I am entitled to tell the truth in this House and the Deputy's assertion is not true. Regarding REPS plans, similar to Part 3, things remain as they are. Therefore those in REPS are not working illegally.
They reduced their nitrogen by 1%. It is not being enforced.
8 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if she is satisfied that Ireland is meeting its obligations on biofuel production; the role of the agriculture industry in meeting this requirement; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5931/06]
The EC biofuels directive sets indicative targets for member states of 2% market penetration for biofuels by end 2005. The targets in the directive are indicative and not mandatory. Ireland is starting from a very low current production base and the 2% target therefore represents a considerable challenge. The objective of the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, who has primary responsibility for the development of renewable energy, including biofuels, is to ensure that Ireland meets the 2% target by 2008 mainly through targeted fiscal measures designed to stimulate market development.
I am very conscious of the central role that agriculture can play in supplying the necessary raw materials for the production of biofuels. These raw materials can include oilseed rape, wheat and sugar beet for the manufacture of liquid transport biofuels, and forestry by-products and other farming and food by-products such as meat and bonemeal and tallow for energy and heat generation. Tallow can also be used in biodiesel production. Factors such as the increasing cost of oil, the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and the opportunity for farmers to explore alternative land uses following CAP reform, mean that the potential of this area must be fully explored.
For the purposes of contributing to the development of policy on biofuels, the Department of Agriculture and Food in conjunction with COFORD and Teagasc has examined the potential of energy crops, wood biomass and farming and food by-products. In general, the production of energy crops for biofuels will need to be demand-led and production by farmers will only occur if the economic returns are greater than those offered by traditional crop enterprises. The production of liquid biofuels from energy crops, in the absence of fiscal incentives, is not economic at current oil price levels. The budget announcement of a major extension of the mineral oil tax relief scheme to cover, when the relief is fully operational, some 163 million litres of biofuels per year, should further stimulate the production of crops for the manufacture of liquid biofuels. This initiative will benefit the environment in terms of a reduction in CO2 emissions, enhance security of supply of fuels, and create jobs and outlets for agricultural production.
As announced in the budget, the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources also intends to launch several innovative grant schemes relating to biofuels, combined heat and power, biomass commercial heaters and domestic renewable heat grants. Within my area of responsibility, a range of developments are already under way or in the pipeline that will encourage the production and use of biofuels. These include grants to promote and develop sustainable forestry, including alternative timber use to reduce dependence on fossil fuels; promoting the use of wood biomass, for example by the installation of a wood heating system at the Department's offices at Johnstown Castle; funding of forest-to-energy pilot projects; willow planting promotion; supporting biofuels research under the research stimulus programme; grant aiding the application of new technologies such as anaerobic and aerobic digestion and fluidised bed combustion, with a renewable energy dimension; and the use of by-products for incineration and co-incineration in place of fossil fuels.
There are also a number of important developments on the horizon at EU level. The Commission has recently produced a biomass action plan and a strategy for biofuels. These are on the agenda for next week's meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council. In this context I will be seeking a review of the operation of the energy crops scheme.
I thank the Minister for the detailed reply. It was disappointing to hear Greencore's chairman say it would not be seeking to develop the biofuel business. This is a golden opportunity to do that and one that is being neglected. What type of information is being given to farmers to encourage them at least to examine the options in biofuels? Is an information and marketing programme being made available to them?
There is a considerable amount of information and the new Minister of State will move on that agenda item fairly soon once she gets her feet on the ground, so to speak. A good deal of work has been done already on this initiative in the Department, with a specific proposal to drive it forward quickly. One of the issues is that farmers will regard €45 per hectare as a nonsense. That is the reason I am raising the issue at Council on Monday because if we are to encourage people to grow energy crops, we will have to pay them. That will be a better incentive. We are doing a number of pilot projects as well. There is a good deal of interest in that and we hope to develop it over time.
I support the Minister on the issue of the €45 per hectare. It is wholly inadequate and if we are serious about this issue, we should put serious money into it because we are facing a significant bill in respect of carbon credits.
Will the Minister comment on the plans, if any, she has to stimulate the use of sugar beet for the extraction of bioethanol? It is critically important we get some direction from her in that regard. When has the Minister met specifically with the Minister with responsibility for energy on the co-ordination of a biofuel industry in this country? The Minister is right. There is not much point in encouraging the use of biofuels if there is not the demand for it. To date, the Government has done nothing to encourage demand. There is little point in talking about production of 163 million litres of biofuel unless it will be utilised. The issue of demand is critically important. We have seen what happened in other countries. Are we prepared to do anything here?
As the Minister of State has a good working relationship with the Minister with responsibility for energy, will she take the lead on this matter and ensure there is some type of co-ordination? Will she not agree that the frustration exists because there does not appear to be any co-ordination among Departments in terms of getting their act together on this issue?
That is another factually incorrect statement from the Deputy. We have a very good working relationship. The Minister of State, Deputy Browne, met the energy people last week and there has been continued work——
When did the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, meet the Minister of State?
The Minister of State had a designated role in this issue. I work in consultation with my Ministers, whom I trust and who are more than capable of delivering the service. I worked to support them in this initiative. At the time, the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, was anxious to progress it quickly. We have done so. The demand was a difficulty but the excise duty issue has been dealt with by the Minister for Finance who is very supportive of alternative energies for many reasons. We also had the issue of hybrid cars, which was dealt with in the budget. Furthermore, we have had a large number of initiatives which were mentioned in the budget by the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey. They will be available very soon. They link in with the work I am doing with willows and thinnings. All these issues are being dealt with but the issue of the €45 per acre will be the key that will unlock this issue.
With regard to sugar beet, as Deputy Upton said, diversification is an option. A number of young farmers in north Cork spoke to me about that. Sugar beet is not included under the EU energy crop scheme but there is nothing to say we cannot pursue such a possibility given that many sugar beet farmers would like to continue to grow sugar beet.
Does the Minister accept there is a need to bring about a significant cultural awareness of biofuel? Following the precedent she mentioned of woodchip installation in Johnstown, perhaps she would suggest at the Cabinet table that the ministerial cars be converted to biofuel or biodiesel or whatever might be feasible at the time. Does she accept that would be the strongest possible message to send out in the same way as we advocated using recycled products in Oireachtas stationery? It would also be a practical step to take.
Has the Minister met or does she intend to meet an entrepreneur or anybody else interested in taking up the opportunity for bioethanol production, particularly with the demise of the sugar beet industry in Carlow? Would she be open to such a meeting given that there are people who need the reassurance of a long-term commitment when it comes to such a capital investment as would be taken to instigate a bioethanol industry? Has she taken any steps to meet people in that regard?
On the last question, those specific issues are a matter for the Minister with responsibility for energy, Deputy Noel Dempsey. However, we have a good working relationship and I have indicated on a number of occasions that any support we can give, in whatever way, will be forthcoming. The farming organisations have expressed an interest in alternative energies. One of the candidates was very forthright on that issue and continues to be. I assume that working relationship will continue. It is a question of all of us working together. On the State cars issue, I will express that view to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
They could use woodchip.
I am being serious.
I am aware of that. I will get a ministerial bicycle.
9 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if, in the aftermath of the Common Agricultural Policy and World Trade Organisation reforms, she is satisfied about the security and traceability of food and food products available in the Irish and European markets with specific reference to animal health and hygiene from husbandry to processing; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5991/06]
Detailed EU legislation lays down the conditions that member states must apply to the production of and trade in food products of animal origin, including the traceability aspects, as well as to imports of these products from third countries. It is a requirement that animal products imported from third countries 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 approved for export to the EU.
While there is free movement for trade within the EU, all consignments from third countries must first be landed at a border inspection post, BIP, that has been approved by the Food and Veterinary Office and undergo documentary, identity and physical checks. These latter checks are carried out at frequencies laid down in EU law. The FVO carries out monitoring and inspection of each member state's BIPs to ensure the conditions for import of animal products into Europe provided under the harmonised legislation are being correctly applied.
I fully support 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. In this context the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, has raised the issue with the Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, Mr. Markos Kyprianou, concerning the sanitary rules applying to the import of livestock products, especially beef, into the European Union. In particular, I have drawn the Commissioner's attention to the need for real equivalence on the specific and important issues of animal traceability, controls on veterinary medicines, prohibited substances and residue monitoring programmes in these countries and, in particular, with regard to Brazilian beef in light of its increasing presence on the European market.
Irish farmers are required to ensure that 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. These all have significant in-built cost factors and, bearing in mind that our farmers are in competition on European and international markets with low cost third country producers, I will continue to seek real equivalence in these areas, both in discussions within the EU and in the context of the WTO talks on market access.
With regard to meat labelling, I am fully committed to ensuring that country of origin is clearly stated on the label. In this regard an enabling provision to allow for the extension of our comprehensive beef labelling regulations to include a requirement for information on the country of origin of beef to be provided to the consumer at the point of choice by establishments in the retail, restaurant and catering sectors, including food business operators, is before the Oireachtas by way of a proposed amendment to section 54 of the Health Act 1947 through the Irish Medicines Board (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
While the proposed enabling legislation before the House will facilitate the extension of country of origin labelling to all meats, because of different traceability systems and some import-export complexities, it is not as straightforward for other meats as it is for beef. As with beef, EU approval would also be required. Notwithstanding these issues, I intend to pursue the matter of country of origin labelling at EU and national level with a view to full implementation at all points of choice.
On the issue of traceability, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland produced a report in 2004. We have been speaking about new legislation but in regard to existing legislation is the Minister of State concerned that one fifth of retail outlets in the trade do not meet the beef labelling regulations and, if so, what is the Department doing about it? Is the Minister of State concerned that the Food Safety Authority of Ireland found that 15% of beef labelled as Irish came from South America and was passed off as Irish food product? When did the Minister of State become aware of the Food Safety Authority report as I understand its contents were made available to the various supervisory agencies?
I understand Deputy Naughten raised that issue on the Adjournment recently with the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children. The beef labelling requirement issues are centralised under the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. With regard to the issue of transformation, which has been raised constantly by Deputies Naughten and Upton, the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, has consistently raised it at EU level at the Council of Ministers and it will be raised shortly once again. The Bill going through the Oireachtas completed Report and Final Stages last evening and has to go back to the Seanad in respect of amendments made in this House. It will then be a matter of signing off on regulations to be presented to the EU for approval.
The report to which Deputy Naughten referred is of considerable concern to all of us with an interest in protecting the Irish food industry and the Irish consumer. While the Food Safety Authority is not under the banner of the Minister of State in terms of funding, is it acceptable that there are only five auditors to deal with 43,000 food businesses and that when a small sample of 90 was taken, a high percentage of those fell outside the legal requirement? Surely there is a need to increase the level of auditing capacity and the level of enforcement to restore confidence in the industry and on behalf of the consumer.
The point raised by the Deputy is one for the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and the Department of Health and Children. Of course, there is a strong working relationship between the Department of Agriculture and Food and agencies that have a relationship with the food and agriculture industry. I think the report to which Deputies Upton and Naughten referred is some years old. So far as I recall, there has been a more recent export——
No, there has not.
I understood there was a more recent——
No, there has not been a more recent report.
That involves research.
I do not want to be left in a position where the Minister will leave the House. There has not been a more——
That is old information. That is not to take away from the seriousness of the issue.
Just to clarify for the information of the House, it is a 2004 report and no report has been completed since. In that report, which is the most recent since 2004, 42% of premises visited did not meet the existing labelling legislative requirements. In light of the fact that the Food Safety Authority of Ireland made that information available to the official agency with responsibility for supervising the various premises, some of which comes under the control of the Department of Agriculture and Food, what action has been taken to date? Is the Minister of State concerned about the contents of that report and, if so, what will be done to ensure this abuse is eradicated once and for all?
The labelling and monitoring of the food industry was centralised in the Food Safety Authority of Ireland which was the first such body to be established in the European Union. Obviously, if there are discrepancies and if there are people who are not following the laws of the country and enacting them properly, the full rigours of the law will apply and will be implemented by the relevant statutory agencies. The Department of Agriculture and Food has only an inspection role in regard to the maintenance——
Since the 2004 report——
That is not what he said.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
