Vol. 633 No. 3
1 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the steps she will take to ensure farmers have the maximum available information on the implementation of cross-compliance measures; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [9211/07]
The introduction of the single payment scheme, involving the move to a decoupled system in Ireland, and the linkage to cross-compliance requirements set down in EU legislation and dealing with the environment, public, animal and plant health and animal welfare was a major challenge both for farmers and my Department. The need to provide detailed information for farmers and to engage in consultation with the farm bodies on the wide-ranging changes inherent in the single payment scheme was recognised at an early stage. A number of information guides and consultation papers on various issues were prepared and distributed to farmers in the last three years. These were augmented by a series of countrywide information meetings for farmers that were delivered by my Department and Teagasc during the latter half of 2004 and again in 2005. My Department also hosted seminars on the single payment scheme at events such as the national ploughing championships at which there were large farming audiences.
Specifically on cross-compliance, my Department published two separate booklets in 2005 and 2006 which were sent to every farmer in the country. These dealt with the 18 statutory management requirements, SMRs, on good agricultural and environmental conditions under cross-compliance. A separate information booklet dealing with the nitrates element of cross-compliance issued to all farmers during November 2006. This was followed by a further series of countrywide information seminars for farmers.
The regulations governing the single payment scheme provide for a farm advisory system that can advise farmers on the various cross-compliance requirements to be available in member states. Ireland already has in place a well developed farm advisory service through Teagasc and private consultancies. These channels can be of major help to farmers in ensuring understanding and observance of the cross-compliance rules. My Department is currently arranging information meetings for Teagasc and private agricultural consultants, with particular emphasis on cross-compliance with a view to updating them on the various SMRs on good agricultural and environmental conditions.
I am very conscious of the concerns of farmers regarding cross-compliance and the risk of incurring financial penalties in their direct payments. This is an issue not only for Irish farmers and my Department, it is also high on the agenda of farmers and administrations in several member states. I have raised my concerns — particularly those relating to the inspection arrangements and the need for advance notice — with Commissioner Fischer Boel on a number of occasions both in person and in formal communication. I have also discussed the problems with Minister Seehofer, the German President of the Agriculture Council, and I am most heartened by his commitment to deal with the issues which are high on the agenda of the Presidency. I took the opportunity when in Paris last weekend to attend the International Agriculture Show to meet my German and French counterparts and impress on them the need to lessen the burden of bureaucracy on farmers in the simplification process now under way.
The Commission is at an advanced stage in finalising a review document on cross-compliance. I expect this to be cleared through the Commission before the end of March and it will then go to the Agriculture Council for discussion in April. With the commitment of the Presidency to progressing the dossier speedily, I hope that changes can be agreed in time to apply to the 2007 inspection arrangements.
In conjunction with this, my Department is carrying out a full review of the inspection arrangements and checklists for the single payment scheme with a view to simplification of the arrangements, including paperwork, where possible, while ensuring compliance with the regulatory requirements. The inspection checklists are documents for completion by my Department's inspectors and not by farmers. The review of inspection report forms, together with the outcome of the Commission's review of the cross-compliance arrangements generally, will be fully discussed with the farming organisations before the single payments inspections for 2007 get under way.
What is the position regarding the introduction of 14-day notices to farmers regarding inspections? As the Minister is aware, the vast majority of problems that have arisen in respect of cross-compliance inspections relate to the paperwork involved, identification, lost tags etc. The latter will not have any real impact in the context of 14-day notices. Will the Minister ensure the introduction of such notices comes to pass?
The Minister is planning to establish the farm advisory system through private consultancies and Teagasc. As she is aware, this system will not cover all farmers, particularly those who are restricted under the regulations relating to cross-compliance. Why is it that farmers are only now obtaining further briefings in respect of this matter? Should such briefings have been provided at an earlier stage? Is it not the case that the new system was supposed to have been up and running from 1 January 2007? Is it not hypocritical of the Minister to be anxious to implement rules and regulations that directly impact on farmers while dragging her heels in respect of providing then with information?
I completely refute the Deputy's assertion. It is obvious he was not listening to——
I listened intently.
The Deputy did not do so. I informed him that people received information in 2004 to 2006, inclusive. Teagasc, with which 99.9% of farmers are in contact, and the private consultants are providing the advisory service. It is hypocritical of the Deputy to suggest that we have not contacted, consulted or informed farmers. As stated earlier, I hope that, on foot of the consultations taking place, changes to the cross-compliance regime will be introduced this year. There is no doubt that further information will be made available to farmers.
It is important to place on record what is happening with regard to inspections. In 2004, there were 18,000 on-farm inspections. In 2006, the number fell to 7,500. This represents a reduction of 58%. In 2004, 6,493 farmers were penalised for breaches of the rules on identification and registration of bovine animals. In 2006, 1,163 farmers were so penalised. The latter represents a reduction of 82%. There has, as promised, been a massive reduction in the number of inspections carried out under this regime. The most striking statistic is that one third of the farms inspected in 2004 had problems with identification and registration and a similar number of farms visited in 2006 had the same problem. The real difficulties relate to identification and they have been with us for a considerable period. In my opinion, our energies would be best spent dealing with the issue of identification as opposed to engaging in pontification. That is where I see the solution to dealing with this issue.
On the issue of the 14 days' notice, as I have indicated it is my intention to spearhead the provision of advance notice. I agree that there is no need in a decoupled period for there to be no notification. That is part of my agenda and that of the Presidency. As I indicated, this matter is now with the Commission. I have had, and am gaining, much support for what we want to achieve.
For the information of Deputy Naughten, Standing Orders provides six minutes for a Priority Question. There are four more questions to be dealt with. I will allow a brief supplementary.
The difficulty was with the Minister's initial reply, not with the supplementaries.
I accept the point the Minister made about identification. In that regard, she might have a word with the Taoiseach because he seems to have a problem with it.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, given that she gave a commitment that the Department checklist would be issued to farmers, when will it be issued to them? Second, the definition of soiled water dating from July 2004 was subsequently changed in December last. When were the agricultural advisers around the country informed in detail of the impact of the change?
Deputy Naughten's little quip is not acceptable and I will tell him why. Perhaps he should have read the contents of the article to see where there is real support for farming on the ground, rather than make snide remarks across the House.
The farmers know that.
The farmers know the reality.
Minister, I am anxious to move to Question No. 2.
This might be our last time for parliamentary questions. It is a good time to provide a round-up and show our position on agriculture, food and forestry. We are on this side at present——
We do not want to abuse Standing Orders.
——and, hopefully, we will continue to be.
It was the Minister, not me, who brought up the issue of identification.
On the issue of inspections, I have indicated that we are involved in a period of consultation with the farming organisations. I have appointed Dr. Cawley to oversee that. It is working well in preparation for the 2007 inspections. Once that has been completed and the outcomes of the European discussions are available, then we will revise the document and can proceed from there.
It is my intention to pursue vigorously the issue of simplification. I have written and spoken to many on this issue. We held a discussion here with the representatives at secretary level as recently as this week. We will be pursuing that further. It is my intention to ensure that the outcome of the European discussions will be reflected in the new document. There is no point in producing a document now and having to revise it in a couple of weeks.
I take it they have never been informed on the soiled water issue.
All I would say about soiled water is that this was raised in the House before Christmas. People are acutely aware of the definitions. It has been made available within the statutory instrument and at the information meetings. Therefore, there is no difficulty on what are the definitions of soiled water or slurry.
They have not been informed.
They have been informed. What Deputy Naughten is trying to say to me is that——
Minister, could I discourage you from engaging with the Deputy across the floor?
——people in Teagasc and in the private sector do not read the farming news in the newspapers.
It is the Minister's responsibility to inform, not anyone else's.
That has been made available in a press release in December last.
There is no point in keeping some of it behind closed doors.
We are being unfair to Deputy Upton.
Deputy Naughten is factually incorrect. A press release was made available in which people were informed of exactly what has happened.
A press release.
It then went to Teagasc and the relevant authorities. The decision has been made.
By law, since 1 January last they are supposed to have all of the information and the Minister has not provided it to them.
It is all there. Perhaps Deputy Naughten does not want to know about it.
Could we proceed to Question No. 2? Deputy Naughten, please. We are being unfair to Deputy Upton.
2 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if she has held either informal or formal discussions directly with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland or with the Department of Health and Children regarding the implementation of the country of origin labelling of beef at catering level; and if she will make a statement on her views of its implementation to date. [9212/07]
The regulations governing the provision of country of origin information on beef in the catering sector were introduced by the Minister for Health and Children. Responsibility for enforcement of the regulations lies with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, FSAI.
Officials of my Department have had extensive discussions with the Department of Health and Children and the FSAI during the drafting of the regulations and since the regulations were made. These discussions included aspects relating to enforcement.
There are more than 44,000 food businesses in Ireland of which over 29,000 are in the service sector, which includes caterers. These are inspected on a routine basis by the environmental health officers in the Health Service Executive, HSE, operating under a service contract with the FSAI.
Checks on compliance with the Health (Country of Origin of Beef) Regulations are being incorporated into routine hygiene and food safety inspections by HSE environmental health officers for establishments covered by these regulations.
I thank the Minister of State for the reply. There are 9,000 caterers and that is a fairly substantial number for the FSAI to inspect on what he described as a routine basis. How frequently would they be inspected and how many of those 9,000 would be inspected on an annual basis?
I understand from the reply that checks on compliance with country of origin regulations are incorporated into that routine inspection, but my question really relates to whether persons were found not in compliance with the country of origin labelling at catering level. If persons were found to be in breach of the regulations, has it been necessary to take action against them?
In response to Deputy Upton's further questions, the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, met the chief executive of the FSAI yesterday and one of the issues that formed their discussion was the implementation of these regulations.
As I may not have made it clear, there are more than 44,000 food businesses in this country of which over 29,000 are in the service sector. I recall reading a reply by the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, to a question tabled by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, Deputy Pattison, where she outlined that on an annual basis two thirds of those 29,000 food businesses are inspected, and she advised that the number of inspectors and level of inspectors required to implement these regulations is sufficient. As Deputy Upton will be aware, the enforcement of these regulations is a matter for the FSAI, whose parent Department is the Department of Health and Children.
I saw on the website yesterday where seven closure orders were applied against food outlets of one kind or another. I put it to the Minister of State that while it is not his direct responsibility to engage the enforcement people, it is still a significant matter from the point of view of the food, which we either eat or export. What communications would he send to the FSAI and perhaps, more directly, to the Department of Health and Children on the need to increase the number of inspectors?
In constant negotiations and discussions between the Department of Agriculture and Food and the Department of Health and Children, we would always raise the need for adequate inspections to ensure that these new regulations are implemented properly. Of course the regulations include consumer rights as well and the consumers have been advised of their right to have the country of origin of beef provided to them by a caterer, and that where the information is not made available they should bring this to the attention of the HSE.
Recently, guidance notes on the implementation of the regulations have been developed by the FSAI for use by their environmental health officers and of course those notes are also being made available to the caterers. It is not a matter of one versus the other. It is an evolving process and we want to ensure that the implementation is done properly and adequately by the people in the industry. The less policing needed in the future, the better.
3 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if her attention has been drawn to the threats to the vegetable industry identified by consultants (details supplied); the way she will respond to these threats. [9281/07]
I am aware of the difficulties being faced by the vegetable industry and I am also aware, as the consultants outline, that it is an efficient industry, well positioned and operated by professional, expert growers who have been strongly supported by the Government over the past decade or so. The fresh vegetable sector is valued at around €80 million within an overall horticulture industry of €300 million per annum. While there has been a consolidation of grower numbers over the last number of years, production has remained relatively steady. As is common in all sectors of the food industry, the vegetable sector has experienced strong competitive pressures from highly concentrated retail chains and this has resulted in static or falling prices.
I recognise that the horticulture sector has potential for substantial growth and development. As outlined in the Agri-Vision 2015 action plan, my Department has committed itself to providing strategically targeted grant support for horticultural projects in production, processing and marketing to improve the overall development and competitiveness of the sector. Under the new rural development programme 2007-13, substantial funding in the order of €50 million has been earmarked for the sector and I intend to launch the first phase of the scheme as soon as the programme is cleared under EU rules. This scheme follows from the grant support provided in the 2000-06 NDP horticulture scheme, under which grant aid amounting to €20 million was paid to producers in addition to the €11 million provided to the sector under the NDP marketing and processing scheme. Taken together, these two schemes have leveraged an investment of over €90 million in the sector since 2000.
Another key to stabilising producer incomes and arresting the decline in numbers in the vegetable sector is participation in the EU producer organisation scheme. Producer organisations provide their members with opportunities to concentrate marketing, reduce production costs and stabilise prices. In effect, they provide a mechanism for producers to work together to strengthen their position in the marketplace by becoming part of a larger supply base, thereby strengthening their negotiating power with the multiples. The proposals for the reform of the common organisation of the market for fruit and vegetables, which were presented to the Council on Agriculture and Fisheries on 29 January, identify strengthening the role of producer organisations as the core part of the strategy for improving the competitiveness of the fruit and vegetable sector in the future. In addition to increased funding for some actions, the proposals include measures for crisis management organised through producer organisations and enhanced aid for measures both within and outside the producer organisation framework to promote consumption of fruit and vegetables, particularly by young people.
I should also add that the Irish food dude programme, which receives considerable funding from my Department and is aimed at increasing the consumption of fruit and vegetables by school children, is being adopted by the EU Commission as a model for this promotion measure in the reform proposals.
Since 2000, some 20 Irish producer organisations have benefited from EU funding amounting to €24 million. With proposals now on the table for greater flexibility in the EU rules governing the formation and operation of producer organisations, I hope to see them playing a much greater role in supporting Irish producers of fruit and vegetables. Currently, the number of vegetable growers involved in producer organisations is relatively small but I encourage all growers to consider the potential benefits which membership could bring to their enterprise. The supports offered through the producer organisation scheme and the NDP will minimise the threats to the vegetable sector, allowing it to prosper and develop.
I advise Deputy Sargent that we are over time on this question.
I have not even opened my mouth.
I am not suggesting the Deputy is at fault.
May I put my question?
I am merely trying to dissuade Members from——
Speaking.
——making Second Stage speeches.
What I will say is far from a Second Stage speech. I will, however, put several pointed questions with regard to this very important matter.
Given that 40% of the field vegetables in this country are grown in my constituency, I am keenly aware of the current crisis. However, after hearing the Minister of State's reply, I do not think he appreciates the issue. What does he mean by "consolidation of grower numbers"? The decrease by 14% in the number of jobs in field vegetables does not sound like consolidation.
It is not a matter of competitiveness, as the Minister of State would allege, but of prices. Does he realise that an increase of 25% is needed in the price of vegetables if the industry is not to collapse within the next three years? That warning was made to me by people involved in the industry. Has he any proposal for the farmers whose costs are increasing and who will go out of business without a 25% increase in prices? The price of field vegetables, and cabbage in particular, is decreasing, but all I hear from the Minister of State is that growers should get their act together. That is not the solution because they already have their act together in terms of efficiency.
I am aware of the challenges that face the industry. I have had the opportunity to visit Deputy Sargent's constituency of Dublin North on a number of occasions, where I met smaller growers as well as larger processors. It is almost one year since the Deputy accompanied me to an establishment in Ballyboughal which had received an investment of €7 million.
This report draws on a range of internal research by my Department and Teagasc to outline the challenges as well as the investments made by large and small enterprises over the past several years, particularly in respect of north County Dublin. When I presented awards to the horticultural sector 12 months ago, I asked growers to become involved in producer organisations. The mushroom sector, with which Deputy Crawford and the Acting Chairman, Deputy Kirk, are very familiar ——
It is dead.
——has gained significant benefits from forming producer organisations in terms of strengthening the bargaining power of individual suppliers. The rest of the vegetable sector has not availed of the opportunities offered by producer organisations but direct grant assistance is available from the EU and administered by my Department for them to do so.
Deputy Sargent and his Dáil colleagues in Dublin North are aware of the challenges which face individual farmers and enterprises. If they are to operate more effectively in the market, they will have to make better use of producer organisations to combine their strength. Only a small number of farmers are currently involved in the Dublin Meath Growers Society and the other producer organisation in north County Dublin.
The proposals we have put to Europe will allow us to develop an even better system for funding producer organisations under the next NDP. The process will be simplified and more beneficial to individual growers. As I noted in my earlier reply, we have allocated substantial amounts of funding for on-farm developments in this sector between now and 2013.
I met the people who commissioned this report, the farmers and their representatives, and the Minister and Department officials have maintained contact with them. Before the end of this month, I will convene a major forum at which all stakeholders will be able to debate the difficulties, challenges, weaknesses and opportunities in the industry. This forum will be led by my Department and will represent an important start.
I acknowledge the Minister of State's argument with regard to producer organisations but does he accept that a considerable degree of co-operation already takes place, co-ordinated by the IFA? Everything possible is being done. Does he agree that Departments, such as the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, have a role to play in providing alternative outlets to the six main retail firms which are essentially squeezing producers? Farmers' markets formed part of the recommendations in the report to which he referred but I do not see them being developed in areas such as north County Dublin, which is ironic given that is home to most of the country's field vegetable production. Will he enlist the help of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and local authorities in providing an alternative to the six main retail firms? When he accompanied me to Ballyboughal, we observed the large retailing and packaging side of the industry rather than the growers who are being forced out of business. We need to help these growers.
Since 2002, mushroom growers have drawn down €22 million under the auspices of their producer organisation whereas fruit and vegetable growers have only drawn down €2 million. I accept there is a need for individual producers to have stronger muscle so that they obtain the return on their produce to which the are entitled and which they need to ensure the fruit and vegetable industry remains strong and viable.
Farmers' markets are important and I have had many exchanges with the Deputy about them. I visited England last September with IFA representatives and farmers from north Dublin. We visited farm shops, in particular, and I would like that concept rolled out in Ireland. We met individuals who have plans to roll-out farm shops in north Dublin and Meath and we passed their planning concerns to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in mid 2006.
I look forward to following that up.
4 Mr. Crawford asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food her views on whether the milk quota exchange system is not providing a fair opportunity for farmers to either buy or sell; her further views on the fact that in small co-operatives or dairies no milk has changed hands and in some of the larger dairies only a small percentage has transferred; and her plans to restructure the system and take account of the anomalies that are preventing both willing buyers and sellers. [9232/07]
The first milk quota trading scheme ran successfully in January and resulted in 120 million litres of quota being offered for sale, with 73 million litres traded. The second stage of the scheme has a closing date for applications of 9 March 2007 and the exchange will be run in April. The trading scheme, which has replaced the restructuring scheme for the 2007-08 quota year, allows milk producers the opportunity to bid for the volume of quota required to meet the development needs of their farm enterprise at a price that will generate a commercial rate of return. In essence farmers may decide on the amount of quota they wish to buy or sell and the price at which they are willing to trade quota. Some 70% of the total amount of quota offered for sale will be transacted on the market exchange and will be sold at the market clearing price. I am satisfied that the new milk quota trading system will create a more open market system of transferring milk quota and will allow farmers much greater freedom to make choices about how milk quota should be transferred, affording them far greater scope to decide the volume and price of quota they wish to buy.
The milk quota regime in Ireland is operated at milk purchaser-co-operative level in accordance with the regulations set by my Department. Under the old restructuring scheme, a primary condition of the scheme was that quota sold into the restructuring pool by a co-operative's suppliers was available for purchase by them in the first instance. The new trading scheme is also operating at milk purchaser level and, as under the old scheme, anomalies arise in smaller co-operatives where there is excess supply of quota. However, I have made provision in the new scheme to allow milk purchasers to group together for the purposes of trading quota, without having to form a registered group of purchasers under the milk quota regulations.
I encourage the Deputy to keep his questions as brief as possible.
That should apply to both sides of the House.
Last week, in reply to a parliamentary question I tabled, the Minister outlined the amount of milk quota that had changed hands over the past six years. In 2006 the amount traded fell by 15 million from 177 million litres compared with 2005. There were great expectations that the new quota system would have a dramatic effect last year but farmers did not offer their milk quota for sale because the Minister announced the restructuring scheme on a Friday and then announced her new proposals the following Sunday. Does she agree it is totally unacceptable that no milk changes hands where a supplier brings his milk to a co-operative if it does not have a computer system? Departmental officials advise that by grouping co-operatives, the issue would be resolved. How can she explain then that only 11% of the available quota transferred in Lakeland Dairies' catchment area, which is a large co-operative?
I refer to the serious issue of a technicality. The document on the sale and purchase of quota states a farmer must dispose of all his quota when it is offered for sale, which means a farmer could lose 30% of its value. A farmer who does this will also sell his cows. If his quota does not sell, how can he re-create milk so that he can lease the remaining 70% for the rest of the year? Will the Minister accept this is a mess?
It is not a mess. The differential ranges from 11 cent and 24 cent per litre under the new scheme. One of the criticisms has always been that the Department interferes too much in the commerciality of farming. This proposal will address that issue.
All the farming organisations were party to the review and they were more than happy with the outcome. Now that farmers are aware of the table outlining the differential, they will establish that they fall within the percentile and they will be able to pay for the quota that becomes available. My Department has received 2,000 applications under this scheme and there will be twice or three times as many applications under this scheme than under previous schemes because farmers have more information and a better understanding of the regime. It will be more than beneficial to farmers and I do not accept, therefore, it is a mess. I outlined that farmers had to make a decision on the basis of price, on what is happening in Europe and what the commissioner had to say and on the review that will take place in 2008. This scheme is a good mechanism and the outcomes I expect will be reflected when it closes. It will be beneficial to allow farmers to sell and to allow others access to purchase quota.
The Deputy may ask a brief supplementary question. We have one more Priority Question to deal with and time is pressing.
The Chair is holding everything back.
The bottom line is the scheme has changed the system dramatically. The Minister stated the differential ranges between 11 cent and 24 cent. Will she guarantee that milk quota will continue to be treated as it is currently? Does she agree there will be legal difficulties because one farmer will be paid 24 cent a litre, depending on where he lives, and another will not? How will that be resolved in the long term?
Ring-fencing will continue as part of Government policy. That has benefited the west and north west and it has permitted farmers to scale up and become competitive. We must move on in this sector because it is hugely important. We need to change and to afford farmers the opportunity to scale up. Perhaps the Deputy wanted to forget about our priority, which is young farmers. They must have priority. We must also examine lost leases, which is also a priority within this pool. The number of applicants under this scheme will increase compared with previous schemes and, on the basis of previous information and assessment discussions that have taken place within farming organisations and co-operatives, people will manage and work within the new system. The percentile between 11 cent and 24 cent will result in people staying in the system.
5 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food her views on the farm inspection scheme; if she is satisfied that the extensive paperwork associated with it is appropriate; her plans to review the requirements; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [9213/07]
The introduction of the single payment scheme and my Department's commitment to the farm bodies to ensure maximum integration of inspections across schemes and for cross-compliance has resulted in a drop in annual farm inspection levels from 18,000 under the coupled regime to less than 8,000 in 2006. I agree the inspection requirements linked to cross-compliance are complex and I am committed to negotiating significant changes in the context of the simplification exercise which is currently under way in the Commission. It needs to be made clear that the inspection checklist on cross-compliance should be completed by the departmental inspector, not the farmer.
It is important also to bear in mind that the controls under the various direct payment schemes are detailed in EU regulations. Failure to ensure a satisfactory control environment leaves a member state open to serious financial penalty — a fact that cannot be lightly dismissed given the magnitude of annual payments of €1.9 billion to Irish farmers under the single payment scheme, the disadvantaged areas scheme and REPS. Nonetheless, we believe the cross-compliance inspection requirements are overly demanding on farmers. It is our clearly held view that some practical amendments can be secured without, in any way, undermining the objectives of cross-compliance or putting accountability in the disbursement of EU and national funds at risk.
As we have made clear, the Minister has raised our concerns about the single payment scheme, particularly the inspection arrangements, and the need for advance notice with Commissioner Fischer Boel on a number of occasions. She has also discussed the problems with the German President of the Agriculture Council and we are assured of his commitment in dealing with the issues over the next few months. The Minister discussed her concerns when in Paris last weekend at the international agriculture show with her German and French counterparts and impressed on them the need to lessen the burden of bureaucracy on farmers in the simplification process now under way.
The Commission is at an advanced stage in finalising a review document on cross-compliance. We expect this to be cleared through the Commission before the end of March and it will then go to the Agriculture Council for discussion in April. With the commitment of the Presidency to progressing the dossier speedily, we are hopeful changes can be agreed in time to apply to the 2007 inspection arrangements.
In tandem with this, our Department is carrying out a full review of the inspection arrangements and checklists for the single payment scheme with a view to simplification of the arrangements, including the paperwork, where possible, while at the same time ensuring compliance with the regulatory requirements. The review of the inspection report forms, together with the outcome of the Commission's review of the cross-compliance arrangements generally, will be fully discussed with the farming organisations before the single payment scheme inspections for 2007 get under way. The full details of the Department's 2007 inspection arrangements will also be sent to all farmers in advance of the inspections.
My colleague, Deputy Penrose, tabled a question last week in which he stated that the document consists of 66 pages covering 1,450 different questions, sections and permutations and that it requires the inspector's signature in 28 different places. I accept what the Minister of State said that the document is to be completed and signed off by her inspectors but there is much reading to be done by farmers and much homework to be done to address the questions with inspectors. The content of the document should be substantially reduced, so that it is appropriate for farmers.
As we have said on several occasions, we agree with the sentiments in regard to simplification. We have looked in detail at the 66 page document to which Deputy Penrose referred. It is important to state the only occasion in which all that paperwork would need to be used would be in a case where a farmer had all of the following on his or her farm: wild birds nesting; a habitat or two; sludge; cattle, sheep, goats and pigs; milking cows; and arable crops. He or she would also have to have an outbreak of foot and mouth; blue tongue; and swine vesicular disease. He or she would be a fairly unusual farmer before all the 66 pages would have to be completed.
He or she has to read the document.
He or she does not have to read a thing. It is about time Deputy Crawford listened to people on this side of the House.
As the Minister has outlined on several occasions, the inspection forms do not have to be read or completed by the farmer. They are to be completed by the inspector. There is a good reason for a detailed inspection guideline for the inspector, namely, it ensures inspectors from Donegal to Wexford apply the same criteria. If there was a vague, half page guideline, one could have several different applications.
The Minister was very clear earlier when she gave the statistics, which really explain the issue. Some 18,000 farmers were subject to on-farm inspections in 2004. That figure was reduced to 8,000 in 2006. There is a reduction of 82% in the number of farmers being penalised. There is much scaremongering going on and it is not fair to farmers.
I wish to make it clear that the farmer does not have to read or complete the form. The form contains specific guidelines for our inspectors. The inspector is the only person who must read and complete the form, so that there is fairness throughout the country.
We agree there is a need to simplify the form and we are working on that. Much discussion will take place between now and the 2007 single payment inspections. We want to simplify the form and make it clearer for everybody. We will talk to the farm organisations and the documentation will issue to farmers before the inspections commence this year.
