Denis Naughten
Question:29 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the status of the implementation of the animal medicines regulations; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24579/06]
Priority Questions.
Proposed Legislation.
The Animal Remedies Regulations 2005, which are designed to transpose EU Directive 2004/28 as well as to amend certain provisions in our national legislation, came into effect on 17 November last. The EU directive provided, among other elements, that veterinary medicines for food-producing animals may only be supplied on the basis of a veterinary prescription unless exempted from this requirement under criteria to be drawn up at EU level before 1 January 2007.
However, the directive also included a provision permitting member states to retain existing national prescription arrangements pending a decision at EU level on the exemption criteria. My Department has decided to avail of this provision, which is reflected in the 2005 regulations. In light of this, all existing off-prescription medicines will remain off-prescription until the end of this year and farmers are continuing to get such medicines over the counter at pharmacies and licensed premises.
With regard to the exemption criteria, the European Commission began a public consultation phase on draft criteria last February. Our analysis of the draft criteria suggested they would place severe restrictions on the range of medicines which could remain off prescription. In view of this, my Department made a submission to the Commission last March setting out the disadvantages associated with its draft criteria and arguing in favour of a more flexible regime under which greater discretion would be given to member states in determining scientifically the appropriate route of supply for veterinary medicinal products based on the risk benefit profile of individual products.
Although the draft criteria were considered by experts from member states at the end of March, the Commission has not yet adopted the draft criteria as formal Commission proposals. When they are eventually formally adopted by the Commission, they will be subject to further consideration and vote at the regulatory committee in Brussels. My Department will continue to press its position and seek to have criteria adopted which give the maximum discretion to member states in determining whether individual veterinary medicines should become prescription only.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
During the negotiations on the regulations last autumn, the Minister gave a commitment to review the national distribution arrangements in consultation with stakeholders and in light of the outcome of the exemption criteria and, in particular, to consider whether persons other than vets should be permitted to prescribe veterinary medicines. In light of this, it is evident that, if the criteria are not altered significantly, my Department will revisit the prescribing aspects of the 2005 regulations.
I raise this issue because farmers have told me they believe the bureaucracy and red tape in agriculture have gone too far, citing this regulation as evidence. As the proposals at European Commission level stand, wormers and medicines such as vaccines will require prescription as of 1 January 2007. Does the Minister have the support of other Ministers for the proposals she has put forward to the European Commission and the Council of Ministers? My understanding is that she has very little support. In case the Minister fails to overturn the Commission's current position on the introduction of prescription-only medicines, will she now put forward draft proposals on the implementation of new regulations to allow for people other than vets to write prescriptions?
All the issues are being considered. One area of concern was the expectation that the Commission would adopt the draft criteria proposals after the meeting at the end of March, but no formal decision was taken and we still await one. At the end of this year we can go in one of two directions, depending on the result of the Commission's deliberations. We will have to consider the Deputy's suggestion that people other than vets be allowed to prescribe items such as wormers in the context of the criteria the Commission sets, because the answer to his question hinges on them. If we are successful in our proposal that the position on wormers remain as it is today, the question will not arise. It will only arise if the criteria turn out to be as strict as the Commission currently proposes. We are fighting the case because we would prefer the status quo to remain.
Is it not the case that the majority of the Minister's colleagues in Europe are opposed to the Irish position and that they want the position to be as proposed by the Commission? In light of that, is it not irresponsible of us not to have a plan B in place, with draft regulations and involving a consultation process during the summer months? If the Minister fails to convince the Commission on the Irish position, she can then quickly bring forward proposals and new regulations to ensure that not only vets but also licensed merchants and pharmacists can write prescriptions in certain circumstances, rather than waiting until the eleventh hour and failing to have them in place by 1 January 2007.
We have succeeded to the extent that, if we had not taken the stance we took, we would have had to designate the range of medicines as POMs 14 months earlier than at present. At least the status quo remains for the moment and will do so until the end of this year. If we had changed the regulations last year, we could have been accused of undermining our negotiating position with the Commission on the argument that the majority of existing non-POMs should remain off prescription, which is still our position.
Nothing has been lost by postponing our decision on the prescription issue and pursuing the exempted mechanism because existing off-prescription arrangements can remain in place in the interim, which is important. Following the result of the criteria debate in Brussels, we will work on what is decided.
Farm Incomes.
Mary Upton
Question:30 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food her views on the fact that only 22% of those engaged in farming obtained their full income from farming; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24641/06]
The Teagasc national farm survey 2004 indicates that on 78% of holdings, the farmer and-or spouse had some source of off-farm income, be it from employment, pensions or social assistance. The survey indicates that 36% of farmers had an off-farm job while 22% of farmers' spouses had off-farm employment. The presence of off-farm employment was most common among cattle and sheep producers where family farm income tended to be low and there was surplus labour on farms.
There is an ongoing trend towards farmers participating in economic activities outside the farm, which reflects both push and pull factors including incomes factors, surplus labour and the much greater availability of off-farm employment. Many farmers now supplement their incomes from off-farm sources while continuing to farm successfully.
Both full-time and part-time farmers make important contributions to the rural economy. While the decoupling of direct payments will provide farmers with more flexibility and freedom, a clear focus on production costs and their optimal level of production will be critical to maintaining the viability of all farm holdings.
This Government is committed to maintaining a core of competitive, full-time farmers, while at the same time providing an economic environment which enables smaller-scale producers to avail of both on-farm and off-farm opportunities to secure their future. Full-time farmers are looking to the new flexibility offered to them under decoupling to develop and intensify their commercial farm enterprises while many small-scale producers find that combining farming with off-farm employment is an effective way to ensure the viability of their holdings.
This trend away from full-time farming towards the part-time option is expected to continue. The recent report of the Agri Vision 2015 Committee states:
Off-farm employment and income are now standard parts of farm family work and income patterns. There seems to be no doubt that present patterns and trends will continue and that farm household income reliance on off-farm employment will increase under the newly reformed CAP.
This Government is focused on ensuring that farming families have the best possible options available for them to stay on the land. That may mean remaining as full-time farmers if their farm size and resources are sufficient and if they choose that option. Alternatively, it may be through the combination of on-farm and off-farm income, which many small-scale producers find the best route to a viable life on the land. This Government is committed to supporting and encouraging our farm families in whichever option they choose.
Does the Minister agree that the fact that only 22% obtain their total income from farming should concern us? Only large-scale ranchers will be viable into the future. What actions can the Government take now and in future to ensure adequate off-farm employment? What if there is a downturn in the economy affecting the availability of such employment and what would be the likely outcome for farmers?
Average family farm income on 38% of farms is classified as derived from full-time farming. This measurement is based on labour input. I have met different farming groups and other people in rural areas and discussed off-farm income options for farmers over recent months. At regional food fora there has been particular interest in small-scale food production from small-scale farmers and others who have not worked on the land for some time but have been involved in other economic activity. Farmers who do not have viable holdings are not confined to farming activities as they would have been in the past. There were no off-farm sources of employment then but, thankfully today, there are such opportunities in substantial numbers. Many primary producers, including small-scale farmers, are also involved in food enterprises. There are approximately 135,000 family farms in addition to 800 industrial units involved in the agrifood industry, which is particularly important. By definition, those enterprises are spread throughout the country.
I have a brief question concerning this country's self-sufficiency in food production, given concerns that have been raised on a number of occasions about imports from third countries. Is the Minister confident that the continued production of foodstuffs here will be adequate to meet local demand?
The Minister, Deputy Coughlan, has emphasised at every fora available to her, at the EU and the World Trade Organisation talks, the absolute necessity for the green box to be protected as regards direct payments. In 2005, €1.6 billion was paid out to the farming community in direct payments. It must be recognised that there was an overlap with some of the payments from the previous year concerning some of the schemes that were being wound up. Direct payments, however, are of crucial importance to farmers. Over the next few days, the Minister will be attending the WTO talks where she will seek the support of other EU members to protect the CAP and European agriculture generally. That is of critical importance to us. The Taoiseach and Ministers, including those present in the Chamber, have raised this matter with other EU Ministers at all available fora. We have emphasised the importance of protecting European agriculture and that policy will be pursued relentlessly by the Government.
EU Directives.
Seymour Crawford
Question:31 Mr. Crawford asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the status of the nitrates directive and its implementation; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24580/06]
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, Deputy Roche, sent proposals to the European Commission in May for amendments to the regulations he made in December 2005 giving legal effect to Ireland's nitrates action programme. The new proposals, which the Minister, Deputy Roche, has outlined publicly, were developed in conjunction with my Department and with the input of Teagasc. They address a range of important issues identified by submission and raised by the farming bodies.
There have since been direct discussions and other contacts between officials of Departments, Teagasc and the Commission. I understand that those discussions are close to being concluded successfully. I am satisfied that the outcome will be of major benefit to Irish farmers in that the changes being discussed with the Commission will provide them with greater flexibility in complying with fertiliser limits and will simplify certain aspects of the regulations. The changes, when agreed with the Commission, are likely to recognise that farmers in REPS are already farming to a high environmental standard. They will also provide an essential breathing space for the pig and poultry sectors, giving them extra time to adapt and to explore alternative ways of dealing with the manure produced on their holdings.
Once the discussions on the regulations are concluded, my priority is to proceed with negotiations on a derogation to allow certain farmers to operate, under appropriate conditions and controls, up to a level of 250 kg of organic nitrogen per hectare. The derogation proposal was given an initial presentation to the EU nitrates committee in December 2005 and there were bilateral discussions with the Commission in January, but no further progress was possible while the regulations were under review. The proposal will have to be discussed further at future meetings of the nitrates committee before approval can be obtained.
I thank the Minister for her reply. Is there any truth in the rumour that has been circulating in the past few days that the regulations as presented to Brussels are not acceptable? Are they being sent back for further change, especially regarding fines and other penalties on farmers? Currently, those penalties are tough. How will the new situation deal with pig and poultry farmers? Will manure from those farms be allowed to go on other farms involved in REPS? What regulations will apply and how will they be affected? Is any effort being made to get litter and manure treated in the same way as fertiliser? As a farmer, it is unacceptable that one can buy whatever fertiliser one likes at the local store and spread it on the land, yet one cannot take a much superior product from local farms in the form of pig or poultry manure.
Does the Minister accept that farmers are in limbo because they do not know where they stand? As the Minister has said, the derogation cannot be given until the agreement is made. That means that many people are half way through this year's season but still do not know what regulations they have to deal with.
There has been no finality to the regulations that are being discussed by the Departments, Teagasc and the Commission. A number of proposals have been put forward, particularly with regard to REPS. As they involve an environmental methodology of farming anyway, one of the concerns was about the use of organic nitrogen on REPS farms, that is, inclusive of the pig and poultry sectors. If the proposals currently with the Commission are accepted, they will certainly alleviate many of the concerns that have been expressed by REPS farms.
In the pig sector, we are seeking an elongated timeframe to allow people to adapt. In particular, we are exploring alternative methodologies for using organic nitrogen. That derogation will allow people to adapt to change and will be most beneficial. Some weeks ago, I announced a farm investment programme which is geared specifically to new technologies. I am hopeful that the pig and poultry sectors, particularly in the Deputy's area, will be involved in that new technology framework. That will allow us to deal with some of the current concerns.
Fines and other penalties are ultimately a matter for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the European Commission. The framework within which we work, the European Communities Act 1972, will not allow any further increase in fines. Concerns have been expressed but we are approaching finality in the discussions between the Departments and the Commission. We have put forward our concerns pragmatically as regards how we wish to see those regulations being amended and I hope they will be dealt with quickly. I am concerned, as we all are, that there had been a time lapse on the derogation which causes angst for farmers.
Once these regulations have been signed off, I intend to meet farmers to discuss all the outcomes, although I realise that summer is not a great time to meet farmers who are at their busiest then. I intend to work with the pig and poultry sectors and REPS farmers so that people will be well informed. Hopefully, the outcome of these discussions will ease some of the current concerns in farming circles.
When will the nitrates committee meet again? Does the Minister accept that there is a need for a genuine and commonsense approach here? We are moving into a major change in circumstances whereby farmers' main income is the single payment. If a farmer loses that payment, he or she would have to change to the farm assist programme. It is vital that time is afforded to ensure that people can work within the system and be fully advised on it. I welcome the Minister's suggestion of having advisory meetings to deal with pig and poultry issues. The Minister must realise serious anxiety exists as to the direction we are taking. The sooner this matter can be sorted out, the better. Regardless of what she says about the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, does the Minister for Agriculture and Food accept she must deal with the issue of family income at farm level?
As a Minister who has met many people throughout the country, I am acutely aware of the concerns that exist. I have taken the opportunity to quell some of this anxiety by providing full information. The Deputy and I agree that information meetings and sectorial meetings will be very important. In the context of the discussions that will take place next Wednesday on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, which is not appreciated among the public, it is important to note that one of the reasons people receive a direct income under the single farm payment is that there are cross-compliance measures.
I want to proceed in a pragmatic format with regard to the framework under which these issues are pursued. That is why it is important that I have met all the farming organisations during my tenure in office. It is also important that we have a charter, a review clause and a kind of a yellow card system to deal with minor misdemeanours. There will also be a major reduction in the number of inspections that will take place. We will continue to consider new ways to deal with these issues, like other member states in the decoupled system.
The Deputy can rest assured that we will use the most pragmatic methodology in dealing with this issue in consultation with the farming organisations but within the legal framework as set down.
It would help if the Minister told that to her inspectors.
I have also included the training of my inspectors with that matter.
There are one or two who could do more.
I will opt for universality.
Animal Welfare.
Mary Upton
Question:32 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food her views on the EU Presidency conclusions which insist on the setting up of a European network of scientific institutes and laboratories responsible for questions relating to animal welfare and that the need to legislate shall be based on the results of sound scientific studies; the support she will ensure Ireland offers towards this goal; and her further views on the high priority assigned by the EU Presidency conclusions to establish objective and measurable indicators on animal welfare. [25007/06]
As the Deputy will be aware, an action plan on the protection and welfare of animals was produced by the European Commission earlier this year following a wide consultation process and represents a road-map for the Commission's planned animal health initiatives for 2006-10. Some of these will take the form of reviews of current legislation, while many will consist of reports to the Parliament and Council on various aspects of animal welfare.
The plan foresees five important areas for action, the upgrading of existing minimum welfare standards for those species not currently covered and general legislation applying to all farmed animals, examination of alternatives to animal testing, introduction of standardised indicators which will allow for the recognition of production systems providing for higher welfare standards and the possibility of labelling which would indicate this, an information programme to ensure that keepers and the public are more aware of animal welfare requirements and action in the international arena supporting initiatives of international bodies such as OIE and Council of Europe, and engaging with developing countries on developing trade based on welfare friendly production systems. The EU will also press for acceptance at WTO of animal welfare as a non-trade concern in agricultural trade.
Since the matter was first discussed in Council in February, my Department has been involved in discussions at various fora on drawing up Council conclusions on the Commission's proposal. The draft conclusions that had been developed formed the basis for the EU Presidency conclusions on the draft action plan at last week's Council of Ministers' meeting. At the Council I stated clearly that I am in favour of improving animal welfare standards, first, on moral and ethical grounds but also because of the reality of the ever-increasing demand from consumers across the EU for assurances in regard to animal welfare. I am happy that the action plan responds to those demands. I am also pleased to note that the majority of member states feel the same way as I do on this subject.
As regards the specific issues referred to by the Deputy, I confirm that I welcome the conclusions on the setting up of a network of European scientific institutions and laboratories relating to animal welfare. Legislation should be based on sound scientific studies and on the establishment of objective and measurable indicators for animal welfare.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
In my contribution at this Council, I highlighted the need to maintain a balance between improving animal welfare and protection standards, on the one hand, and the continued sustainability of the various sectors of agriculture on the other. EU producers are already operating in a very competitive environment where there is considerable pressure from products from third countries. In many cases, these products are not subject to the same rigorous production conditions as those applying within the EU. We need to be prudent, therefore, about introducing more demanding conditions which involve additional costs for EU producers unless we can also require third country operators to meet similar standards. We must avoid repeating the recent example of conceding third country markets for cattle exports to operators who are not subjected to any significant welfare rules.
I am glad the Minister stated she supports these measures but my understanding from the report on last week's meeting was that Ireland was among the countries that criticised the ambitious plan of Commissioner Kyprianou on improving animal welfare. That criticism seems to have been based on the economic consequences which it was perceived would arise if the conditions proposed by the Commissioner were imposed. There was a further commentary that a number of countries felt that if these conditions were put in place, it would leave Europe wide open to imports from third countries where conditions were not as good.
A number of issues arise, in particular with regard to the problem of discovering exactly what happens in third countries, not only with regard to traceability but also with regard to animal welfare. Will the Minister comment on the suggestion that Ireland was one of the countries that criticised the Commissioner's action plan on improving animal welfare?
If I had time to finish my original answer, I would have said that I was very balanced in my remarks at the meeting and that I believe there should be a balance between improving animal welfare and protection standards, on the one hand, and the sustainability of the various sectors of agriculture on the other. It is equally important and quite right to state that, as a non-trade concern, the European Commission and the Community should avoid the mistake that has taken place involving the substitution of live animals from Ireland and the European Union with animals from third countries, in particular developing countries where the same standards do not apply. From an animal welfare perspective, as labelling was very important in the context of the broiler debate that took place in the Commission, there should also be an EU and a non-EU labelling system, in particular in the poultry sector. This must be appreciated as an all-party concern.
I did not in any way criticise the animal welfare requirements. As I stated in my original response, I supported those requirements but I also feel there should be a balance in the discussions taking place.
With regard to imports from third countries, it is surely incumbent on us to put in place a system of standards, or at least to try to insist at European level that such a system will apply in terms of what the FVO is supposed to do with regard to animal welfare as well as traceability. This would remove from the equation concerns we might otherwise have about third countries. This brings us back to the issue of ensuring that the FVO or an equivalent body does a substantial job by ensuring that the products, whether in the context of traceability or animal welfare, are what they are supposed to be.
I agree, which is why I took the opportunity to write to Commissioner Kyprianou once again on this issue to re-express my concerns vis à vis the importation of meat products. I sometimes sing a lone tune with regard to non-trade concerns because many of my colleagues of necessity wish to have cheap imports. Some of my colleagues will speak of the necessity of having animal welfare regulations, traceability regulations and food safety standards while at the same time they have a cheap food policy. This can create difficulties for those such as myself.
I will continue to pursue vehemently the non-trade concerns which exist at present and I will take every opportunity to raise these issues with Commissioner Kyprianou. I have forwarded to him all relevant documentation and information that has been available to my Department and the media in requesting him to reconsider once again the outcomes of the inspections that have taken place in third countries. On the basis that this issue has been raised ad infinitum in the House, we must pursue it vigorously. At the same time, when I speak to Mr. Lamy he always tells me that the EU creates difficulties for those like him because, for example, it bans the use and importation of meat products with hormones.
The Deputy will understand the difficulties in this regard. I will continue to be vociferous on non-trade concerns within the European Commission.