I welcome Mr. John Dillon, president of the Irish Farmers Association, and his colleagues. We are pleased they have accepted our invitation to make a presentation. Before I ask Mr. Dillon to make his presentation, I draw attention to the fact that while members of this committee have absolute privilege the same privilege does not extend to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside of the House, or an official, by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Mr. Dillon may now proceed with his presentation.
Nitrates Directive Action Programme: Presentation.
Mr. John Dillon
I was in the Visitors Gallery for the earlier debate and noted with interest what was being said. There are three issues on my agenda which I would like to discuss with the committee. If there are other issues members want to raise, that is their privilege.
The IFA is very concerned at the implications for Irish farmers of the measures included in the Government's draft nitrates directive action programme. It is our considered opinion that the measures proposed in the draft action programme are unnecessary, unworkable and unaffordable for Irish farmers. Farmers are committed to clean water and protecting our environment. Water quality in Ireland is improving. The clean environment we enjoy in Ireland is largely a legacy of generations of farmers who contributed to the high quality countryside. Water is an important part of this high quality environment.
Farming in Ireland is grass-based livestock farming, unlike in other European member states, which have highly concentrated arable farming and livestock production systems. The CAP favours low stocking density, which results in a reduction in fertiliser and food inputs. About 38,500 farmers are participating in the REPS, which requires them to meet very high environmental standards. Since 1994, pig and poultry enterprises in Ireland must have an EPA licence. They are meeting standards that are the highest environmental standards for industry in Europe. These measures have been undertaken at a significant cost to farmers. Gross investment by farmers in environmental protection over the past decade has totalled more than €2 billion.
In our submission on the Government's action programme, the IFA stated that the measures proposed are unnecessary because of the overall excellence and improvement in water quality in Ireland; the changes that have occurred regarding livestock numbers and fertiliser use, the likely effects of CAP reform and the introduction of a single farm payment and significant participation by farmers in the REPS.
The IFA has also stated that measures proposed in the draft action programme are unworkable because they are removed from the practical realities of farming in Ireland. The proposed closed periods for the application of fertiliser on land are excessive. The minimum manure storage requirement on farms is also excessive, especially in regions where water quality is regarded as excellent. The limit of 170 kg of organic nitrogen, or even the 210 kg limit, will undermine the competitiveness and viability of our best commercial farmers. One should remember that the limit of 210 kg per hectare involves a stocking rate of one cow per acre. This imposes an unreasonable bureaucratic burden on farmers. Such measures are also unaffordable for Irish farmers because of static and declining farm incomes and the cost to farmers of complying with the measures.
In its submission to Government, the IFA has analysed the trends in farm incomes in Ireland and the outlook for incomes after decoupling and the introduction of the single farm payment from 2005. The IFA has also requested O'Sullivan Consultants to assess the costs to farmers of complying with the minimum storage requirements on farms. The sum of €1 billion is an objective and conservative estimate. The IFA has also called on the Government to honour the commitment it made in Sustaining Progress to work with farming organisations to develop measures that do not undermine farmers' livelihoods. Together with actions by industry and local authorities, we will meet the requirements of the nitrates directive on water quality.
Members are aware of my views on the 2015 committee being established by the Minster for Agriculture and Food because those views are in the public arena. Farmers' details have been analysed, quantified and published almost monthly for many years. We have been regulated, inspected and castigated. Farm size, farm incomes and the cost of production are all well known. If Department of Agriculture and Food reports could increase farm incomes, Irish farmers would have the highest living standards in the world.
Farm productivity has increased 400% in the past 30 years, yet farmers' share of the consumer price has been cut from 50% to 30% over that same period. The share of disposable income spent on food has fallen from 25% to 13% and, in the past ten years alone, more than 30,000 farm families have been forced to get off-farm employment just to keep going.
I am putting forward my agenda to this committee and I am determined to focus on farm incomes and the following issues so that the 2015 committee is not a waste of time, producing another useless report. A viable farm gate price for milk, beef, lamb, pigs, poultry, grain, sugar beet, potatoes, fruit and vegetables is necessary.
I am sorry to interrupt. Is it possible to have a script of this presentation?
Mr. Dillon
Yes it is. I will have it sent to the Senator.
The cost of processing must be tackled as well as the greater efficiencies of processors. Investigations of the cost of food to consumers, retailers' margins and the powers of the supermarket multiples must be carried out as well as the cost of inputs to farmers and the dominant position of a small number of importers and suppliers. A value for money audit of Bord Bia and Teagasc must be carried out and Teagasc itself must be overhauled from top to bottom. We want to quantify the costs of regulation and the army of farm minders which has sprung up recently. We must have a definite programme to strip out those costs, including self-assessment for cost-compliance purposes. The €1 billion for the nitrate directive would severely damage our competitiveness if the Government gets its way.
We must have proper food traceability and labelling is a must. Imported meat must have the standards we have in this country and should state the country of origin clearly at retail and catering levels. That is not the position at the moment, mainly because there is no legislation to enforce it. After Commissioner Fischler's CAP reform, Government measures are required to develop and consolidate farm holdings, including roll-over relief and the removal of stamp duty if we are to move forward. A strong Government commitment is required to state that there will be no concessions beyond CAP reform in the WTO.
I will pursue this agenda to challenge the Minister and the committee to make progress on these issues. The ultimate test for the committee is to come up with specific recommendations to improve farm incomes and living standards and achieve a viable agricultural industry in a rapidly-changing world.
We want renewed efforts to be made, such as are being made by the US to restart the WTO negotiations. The IFA was disappointed the negotiations broke down in Cancún last September although the breakdown was not related to agriculture. The EU was in a strong position going into Cancún because the CAP reform decision had been agreed. The combination of Agenda 2000 and CAP reform agreed in Luxembourg made it possible for the EU to offer a 36% cut in import tariffs and a 45% cut in export subsidies. Furthermore, the decisions on decoupling mean that, according to Commissioner Fischler, 70% of the CAP direct payments would be classified as "green box" - that is non-trade distortion. We are concerned that the EU will be given no credit for the recent CAP reform and may be under pressure to make further cuts when it comes to the next discussion on the WTO.
Ireland is a high-cost country and farm families wish to have the same standards as other sectors in society. We cannot live with world market prices, which is what the WTO agenda is all about, without having a secure income after decoupling. I am concerned that the NGOs such as Trócaire are now challenging even the decoupled direct payments. Our position is that the EU must make no concessions in excess of the CAP reform. I ask the Government and the Opposition to support this policy.
I am open for questioning. I have my team of people with me who are Mr. Michael Berkery, the general secretary of the organisation; Mr. Con Lucey, our chief economist; Mr. Tom Dunne, chairman of the industrial committee which deals with most of the issues to which I referred and the deputy president, Mr. Ruaidhri Deasy.
Thank you Mr. Dillon. We will now take questions.
I thank Mr. Dillon and his colleagues for making this detailed and informative presentation.
Will Mr. Dillon outline what he would like to see in regard to the nitrates directive since he has described it as unworkable and unaffordable? I understand the concerns in regard to the workability, bureaucracy, additional cost and so on. What is a reasonable position to take and how would it protect the environment and accommodate farmers' needs?
In regard to the 2015 committee, while we do not have the definitive post-Fischler outcome, there is no doubt that farming is changing and that there will be radical changes in terms of what must be done and accommodated. What are Mr. Dillon's views on what changes could be put in place to take account, for example, of the requirements of small farmers? Farm income alone has for small farmers become non-viable. It must be acknowledged that off-farm employment will become more and more significant. What kinds of moves and directions would Mr. Dillon like to see to take account of those needs?
Mr. Dillon mentioned he would like to see a complete overhaul of Teagasc. I am interested to know the nature of the overhaul he has in mind, what changes can be made and how he thinks Teagasc might adjust in order to accommodate the changes.
Before I call Deputy Hayes, Deputy Timmins asked me to apologise to the president and his colleagues. As you may have heard, he cannot be here because he has to attend the High Court with members of Wicklow County Council.
I questioned the Minister in the House last week about the nitrates directive, which is currently the most talked about issue in farming, and the most worrying issue for progressive farmers. As the Minister answered me he waved a document which had been signed by the IFA. When was that document signed? I was taken aback, from an Opposition point of view. The Minister said it had originated before my time, around seven or eight years ago. I will allow the delegation to comment on that and on the position of the IFA on this matter. From our perspective, it is hard to argue about something when the Minister tells us he has the support of the farming organisations.
Obviously, some derogations are needed. Could Mr. Dillon outline to the committee the most important derogations the Minister should seek, and fight for if necessary? The directive is worrying, particularly to progressive dairy, cereal and beef farmers around the country. There are few left in the business - they are going out of business every day. A number of people intend to pull out over the next few years in my area, which is not too far away from the area of the president of the IFA. He knows as well as I the number of people who are leaving the land or plan to do so. I am concerned about this. What will be the effect of the Fischler proposals on the broader rural community - the villages and towns, the co-ops, the stores and all those who have depended on agriculture heretofore? Perhaps the delegation has some figures they could give to the committee in this regard.
I am sorry I was not present when Alan Dukes was mentioned. I know the IFA was surprised and amazed at the Government's appointment of a member of the main Opposition party. Mr. Dukes, was rejected by the people of Kildare when he put his name on the ballot paper. I was disappointed to see a man of his quality being let down by an agricultural county. Many voters have questions to answer about why they would leave a man such as him outside. People sign up to certain parties and they made that decision. I was sad to see a man who has played such a role left out in the cold. Mr. Dukes's recent appointment was a good one. There is nobody of his stature either at home or in Europe. I defend the appointment. It is not a problem for Mr. Dukes that he was rejected by the electorate of Kildare, but it is sad that it should happen to a man like him. From the point of view of our party, we have had brilliant Ministers for agriculture who have not always been well looked after by the electorate. I support the appointment; there is no better man for the job. Our party will stoutly defend his position.
Those are my questions for the delegation. I will be particularly interested in their reply to my comments about the nitrates directive as I would appreciate clarification in this area.
Following the party political broadcast by Deputy Hayes——
I was stating a fact - the Deputy is fairly handy at that himself.
I appreciated the presentation by the president of the IFA, Mr. Dillon, and I welcome him and his colleagues to the committee. At times I wonder about the people who make decisions that affect communities struggling to survive. I worry about how out of touch they are. This debate exemplifies my point. The people who make the decisions have no concept of what it is to survive and to try to maintain the fabric of society in rural Ireland, which has played a major role in the development of the State. People are extremely out of touch in the area of the nitrates directive and the intent behind it. The policy in the past 30 years has been to encourage larger enterprises. The driving force from within the country and outside is towards the survival of only the larger operators. This ethos has resulted in the massive decline of the small to medium sized family farm. This is being driven by profit margins. With smaller and smaller profit margins the weaker and smaller operators cannot survive.
The nitrates directive will result in a reduction in production. The medium sized full-time family farmer who is trying to survive is again being penalised. Matters are being further complicated by the proposed calendar. Do the people responsible for this have any concept of what they are dealing with? I am certain, looking around the table, that people who are involved in the farming industry, for whom farming is their livelihood, are conscious of when and when not to spread slurry on their lands. The people who make these decisions seem to have no idea about this. There could be fantastic weather towards the end of the year which would give one the opportunity to spread slurry, while a few weeks later, when one is allowed to spread it, there could be three or four inches of rain in the space of a week.
Another problem is the amount of expenditure on provisions for storage, which becomes a problem when one has a marginal profit. When Mr. Dillon and his colleagues reply, perhaps they could outline to us the repercussions of the proposed calendar and storage. What effect will this have on the declining industry? I do not know how the talks among the farming bodies, the Government and the people who make the decisions turned out but there does not appear to be any co-ordination of input from the people of rural Ireland.
Mr. Dillon mentioned that Teagasc needs an overhaul. Over the time of the past two budgets in the House, Teagasc has had to sell assets to survive and maintain its services, or part of them. If this continues there will be no Teagasc, so there will be no need for an overhaul. On the matter of proper food traceability, I concur with the points that were made. There is no traceability of food imports into this country. Hotels in many parts of the country are selling beef from areas that are contaminated. We had a debate about this before the delegation came in, during which we discussed section 17A of the Diseases of Animals Act 1996. Here we have food coming in from areas in which foot and mouth disease is rampant and being sold as safe food without any traceability. I fully concur with the points made by Mr. Dillon. Roll over relief is another aspect of this. When people are trying to develop and grow bigger to meet it, they are penalised without any facility for roll over relief on sale or purchase afterwards.
Mr. Fischler told us the Commission wanted the reforms to the CAP tied down before entering the WTO talks so there would be an agreed position for negotiating. I hope that continues to be the case. I was given to understand by Commissioner Fischler and the Minister for Agriculture and Food that it will be.
I thank the delegation for its presentation.
I welcome the IFA delegation, particularly the two members from north Tipperary, Mr. Berkery and Mr. Deasy.
Our discussion today is primarily on the nitrates directive and I will deal with that, even though Mr. Dillon invited us to comment on other aspects of agriculture. He mentioned figures of 170 kilograms, or even 210 kilograms of nitrogen per hectare. Is Teagasc, the advisory body that supposedly exists for farmers' benefit, acting for the benefit of the Departments introducing these regulations and, hence, causing the conflict about requirements?
Is the nitrates directive being introduced pre-Fischler rather than post-Fischler? We need time for agriculture to settle down. If a person has 100 head of stock and 200 acres of land, his requirements for winter storage will be significantly less than for a farmer with 100 head of stock and 50 acres of land because he would be in a better position for wintering out. There will be significant differences in storage requirements.
Aspects of the nitrates directive are being introduced in haste and might not be necessary. The cost of production of the extra storage in which farmers will have to invest is being compounded by the new charges being introduced by local authorities throughout the country where farmers will have to pay a levy on these new farm buildings. The resulting costs increase the cost of their products because levies on quarries and the cement industry will also exacerbate the prices of the building services.
The IFA and Teagasc seem to be reconciling themselves to conditioning the farming community to part-time activity. Not only have the Department of Agriculture and Food and the Minister failed the agricultural community, so have the farming bodies, in the run up to the Fischler proposals. This is demonstrated by the flight from the land. Thousands of farmers have left and a hard core of commercial farmers remain. The rest are part-time farmers looking after the countryside in a caretaker capacity and the agricultural bodies are resigned to this role.
There is an undertaking in the agriculture industry to rationalise, as we have seen with dairy co-operatives forming super co-operatives while smaller ones close down. Recently the Department of Agriculture arranged for Bord Glas to be subsumed by Bord Bia. It is about time the IFA and the other farming bodies embarked on a rationalisation programme with one strong voice lobbying for the agricultural community that will be heard and be effective.
I am amazed that when we give the IFA the opportunity to discuss important issues in the nitrates directive and other issues of urgent importance to farmers, it uses much of the time available to it to have a go at the 2015 committee, saying it would produce a useless report. I put it to Mr. Dillon, as leader of the IFA, that the problem is not producing a report, it is implementing it. The IFA should be broad enough to take on board suggestions that would be made to it by a committee. I have heard many people in the agriculture sector question the credibility of the IFA when it said it would not sign up to agricultural agreements or co-operate with the Minister as long as the roll over relief has been done away with and capital gains tax is imposed on compulsorily purchased land. Those are issues that should be addressed.
Smaller farmers are no longer represented. The IFA might acknowledge that fact through its encouragement of associate membership to bolster the organisation. These issues should be addressed. Farming is in crisis and it needs strong leadership. The leader of Macra na Feirme said we should have one powerful voice. What does the IFA think of that?
I welcome the president of the IFA and his team to the committee. I listened carefully to their remarks.
The IFA's early and speedy condemnation of the 2015 committee is unfair. It should be given a chance. I welcome the appointment of Alan Dukes on to the committee and while Deputy Tom Hayes was disheartened at his rejection by the Kildare contingent, Fine Gael rejected him as well, which was more hurtful. He is a good man and he is in the right place to do a good job.
Fine Gael did not reject Alan Dukes.
We are not concerned with individuals, we are concerned with the group before us today so I ask committee members to stick to the point.
I met delegations from the IFA on the nitrates issue and they are deeply concerned. Deputy Upton asked a relevant question and I would like an answer to it. What is an acceptable figure?
On the current state of farming and the numbers leaving the industry, Government policy, Teagasc and the IFA are not really influencing what is happening. Young people are looking at other opportunities that exist due to education. We grew up and worked with the land and kept it when it would not keep us but young people are no longer prepared to do that. They get better jobs with shorter hours and we now welcome immigrant labour to keep the economy going. I am not as despondent about the future of agriculture as some of the speakers here. We face a new challenge. Life is changing rapidly and the Ireland of ten years hence will be very different from the place we know now. Perhaps farmers are being blamed wrongfully for many environmental problems. Several county councils are causing greater problems. In my county we have waited three years for seven sewerage schemes for seven villages. The council blames the Department and the Department blames the council but the result is that progress has been very slow.
I am surprised the IFA has not commented on once-off rural housing which is a serious issue and should be taken up strongly. I mean no offence to any group but the time has come to form one farming organisation. Associate membership for any farmer, small, part-time or otherwise, would not be satisfactory - one is in or out. Farming organisations must tackle this at such a time of challenge and change.
I welcome the delegation and congratulate the president and the deputy president on their unanimous re-election. If I was at an IFA meeting I might make certain observations. Deputy Wilkinson made several very pertinent points and I would like to hear clear answers to Deputy Upton's questions but I will ignore the political broadcasts. The IFA's submission on the draft nitrates directive is rather extensive and I presume the association is aware that the Minister seeks a derogation on this to which we all hope there will be a successful outcome. We do not need to enumerate the percentages of farmers caught at different levels. We are conscious of that but a reasonable derogation would be highly important for the ongoing development and growth of farming. Much of the delegation submission is reactive but there comes a time when such a national organisation needs to be pro-active. Farming and its structures have undergone incessant change in the past four or five decades. Whether we like it or not this will continue as Deputy Wilkinson said.
We need to consider land utilisation policy in the future. The western world has engaged in a certain type of farming for the past 2,000 years while the East engaged in a different type. That is a challenge for us with the control of production and production methods. The world population is growing and will need to be fed. An energy policy is also required. Land utilisation will be necessary soon and we should get into the game. The land is one resource that does not run out but we cannot make more of it whereas oil and gas run out but are replaced by wind energy. The IFA should become pro-active and engage with this issue.
The submission today was quite good. I agree with it on the world trade agreement, but it is somewhat too critical of the committee. It should give the baby a chance to walk. I must agree that Alan Dukes as chairman is a person of quality, something we recognised but I am not so sure the IFA always did.
I too wish to be associated with other speakers on the nitrates directive. This has a serious effect on commercial farmers whose importance we recognise. I have spoken to both Ministers on this problem and hope we will get the vital derogation we seek. We have witnessed some of the finest weather over the past six to eight months and it would be a sin if a farmer could not have spread fertiliser or slurry in that time. We need a sensible approach from officialdom and the farmers. There are always a reckless few but most of the farmers in my area take a very sensible approach to spreading slurry and fertiliser. I hope we will see a derogation coming in the right direction for the improvement of Irish agriculture.
I support my colleague, Senator Callanan, and every member of this committee has supported once-off rural housing, knowing the importance of keeping it alive. We are up against some organisations which do not want anyone living in rural Ireland except the birds and the bees. We were all reared in rural Ireland and we are very proud or it. Each of us is committed to seeing that it is kept alive.
The IFA fully supports that issue.
There are a number of issues on which I would like to hear the comments of the IFA. Where does the IFA see us going on decoupling? What are its viewpoints on exports, particularly of live cattle, quality assurance and transportation? The committee has met the Minister and the Commissioner to discuss the importance of these issues. The IFA has also met them and it is vital that we work together in that regard.
The Minister earlier referred to Johne's disease which has affected some of my constituents. What is the IFA's viewpoint on it? I understand there is a serious problem with compensation in that regard. Some of the people currently being hit hard by this disease have been hit hard by other diseases in the past. One can take only a certain amount.
Mr. Dillon
I will go through the questions presented but whatever I leave out in my answers, one of my four colleagues will pick up on.
Deputy Upton asked what the IFA is looking for from the 2015 committee. As stated in the presentation, the IFA has clearly pointed out what it wants from the committee. If that happens, it will be a successful and good committee.
On the issue of the nitrates directive, the IFA has made it clear that it cannot accept anything less than a cow to the acre as damaging to the environment. If that is damaging to the environment, farmers will be badly affected. Teagasc, bad as it is, has told the IFA that it recommended to the Department of Agriculture and food that 210 kg of organic nitrates for hectare was perfect for the environment. I wonder why the Minister for Agriculture and Food demanded a 170 kg derogation when his right hand organisation advised him on 210 kg as a suitable amount. Teagasc has informed the IFA that 210 kg of organic nitrates per hectare, which is one livestock unit to the acre, should have been demanded. The Government ran away with its own story on this issue.
During the partnership agreement discussions for Sustaining Progress, it was clear that 210 kg per hectare was acceptable, according to Teagasc. It was clear that this could apply across the country with no need for derogation. Derogation would apply to 250 kg per hectare without costs where there were no water problems. The Department of Agriculture and Food has failed to go forward with a credible proposal to Brussels.
Another issue tied into this is storage capacity. Deputy Hayes referred to an occasion when the Minister claimed that the IFA had signed up to a document on the issue. The IFA signed up to nothing. It had a clear agreement in partnership and understanding from Teagasc that 210 kg per hectare was the recommendation to the Department of Agriculture and Food. It is not acceptable that a Minister could state differently.
The nitrates directive from Brussels was put in place in 1991. Many changes have taken place since then with a static production in livestock during this time. We reached the quota of livestock in 1992 and there has been no increase in livestock production. The use of nitrogen and phosphate during this period has decreased. Up to 95% of the drinking water is at EU standards. Ireland is at the top of the EU scale for water quality. Our Government, Minister and officials sent a document to Brussels that was unacceptable even to Teagasc and certainly not acceptable to the IFA.
Farming has changed in the past two years with more to come. There was reference to the 2015 committee. I must be careful in what I say about it. At the 2010 committee, in my predecessor's time, nothing came out of it, although, I noted from yesterday's newspapers that the Minister stated that all the 197 recommendations were implemented and that farm incomes have decreased. If those were the recommendations of the 2010 committee, it was a total failure. That is why I am sceptical of the 2015 committee's direction. If its recommendations are like any of those of the 2010 committee, Irish farmers and farming communities are doomed to failure. It must be remembered that a farmer's average income is €15,000 while Civil Service incomes average at €40,000, when benchmarking is added. All these matters have to be taken into account.
Deputy Ferris referred to the traceability of food which applies only to farmers while hotels and restaurants provide no traceability for food consumed on their premises. Last year, the IFA reported on beef origin through DNA testing on food sold in restaurants and hotels. The report found that 15 of the 53 meats tested showed no Irish origin. Legislation or regulations need to be introduced to ensure food consumed here complies with the same standards as we apply to Irish Produce. Irish food should not be in competition with food to which the same standards do not apply. Deputy Ferris also referred to roll over relief. The IFA is interested in scaling up in some areas. However, how can a farm scale up when one cannot sell some land far from the farm to buy some near the farm without paying 30% in stamp duty. Such a measure does not support the industry or the viability of farmers on an average income of €15,600.
Deputy Ferris also referred to CAP reform and the WTO talks. I must be cautious because members have privilege but we do not. With the CAP reform and the WTO, there is no doubt that Mr. Fischler made a serious mistake. He showed his hand before going out to negotiate in Cancún, and when he got there what happened? The other 130 or 140 countries said, "Thank you very much, Mr. Fischler, but how much more will you give?" That is what was being proposed. When the Minister for Agriculture and Food went to Brussels with a limit of 170 kg of organic nitrogen as a limit, he did exactly the same thing. He gave away everything; there was nothing left. That was what happened in Brussels.
Senator Coonan raised the nitrates directive, but I think that I have made my points on that. I was asked whether Teagasc was benefiting the Government or farmers. If it benefited the Government, one would expect the latter to accept its advice; it is certainly not benefiting farmers at this stage. One hand does not seem to know what the other is doing. I suggest that the Government and the Minister for Agriculture and Food, who appointed Teagasc and established it as a semi-State body, should at least take the advice offered when told that 210 kg of organic nitrates was recommended. However, the Minister did not accept that, so what is the point of having Teagasc?
Why should one have a storage requirement, particularly in the south of Ireland where there might be a very short winter, sometimes lasting less than one month? One is expected to have storage for 16 weeks, or 24 weeks in some places. That is taking money out of farmers' pockets and it is not acceptable. It should not be acceptable to the members either; it cannot go on.
Council charges were also mentioned. We do not believe that they should levy any charges on farmers, since it is another instance of paying for the benchmarking agreed in the past. There is no doubt about that. It might be ring-fenced at the moment, but they were getting allocations in the county councils to do certain jobs. That allocation will not be there now, so this "ring-fencing", as they call it, will mean new charges.
It was also suggested that the IFA was more or less conditioning farmers to go part time. That is not our position. We believe that farmers should be able to earn a decent living from their business. Would one ask people in any other sector, teachers for example, when they have finished their day's work, to go and do another job because one cannot afford to give them an increase? That is what we are being told as farmers, since our businesses cannot support us. We are not saying that and we never conditioned farmers. Teagasc has done it, however, as has the Minister for Agriculture and Food. Perhaps he is taking Teagasc's advice in that instance, since it suits him.
The issue of rationalisation arose and having one strong co-operative. There are monopolies, so one strong co-operative might be good or bad. However, the Competition Authority will not allow certain things to happen. At the same time, the Government is prepared to stand over what the Competition Authority is doing. The Competition Authority is a hobbyhorse of the Tánaiste. I suggest that those areas be tackled seriously. We want the maximum price for our product. We also want the co-operatives to be efficient enough to produce that maximum price, whether there is one co-operative or five or ten. Whatever happens, we want that maximum price. They must not give it away to the multinationals and the supermarkets as they are doing at the moment.
The 2015 committee was also mentioned. Alan Dukes has been referred to several times, and I have great regard for him. Members may smile if they choose, but I could not understand why he should take the position from the Government when he was in Opposition. He is propping up the Government.
No.
Mr. Dillon
If he does something good for farmers and the 2015 committee comes up with the answers to my questions, it will have been very good, and I hope that Mr. Dukes receives credit for it. However, on the basis of what has happened in the past, it will be the same failed system of reports and surveys based on trends. One need not be there to know what will happen if we base everything on trends. From that point of view, if he comes up with the goods, so be it, and I hope he receives the credit. However, on past records, there will be no goods to come up with.
Deputy Wilkinson thought I was being unfair to the 2015 committee. I have made points about the reports, surveys and analyses done in the past. If those analyses had been taken up, Irish farmers would have the highest standard of living in the world, let alone the country. I am going by what happened in the past, which was such a failure. There were 197 recommendations in the last report. Most of them have been implemented, only for our income to fall below €15,000. How could that be a worthwhile system? That is why I do not believe I was unfair. I made my points and I have put my agenda forward very clearly.
Young people are looking to other opportunities. That is their prerogative. They can go whatever way they choose. As long as the environment is all right, they can take up farming if they feel it suits them. However, how can one take up farming with the income to which I refer? Farmers have been wrongly blamed for pollution. I suspect that is what the member was referring to. There is a suggestion that county councils could be part of the problem. Farmers have no licence to discharge effluent into waters, rivers or estuaries. County councils and industry have such licences, yet we are still blamed. The nitrates directive is agricultural and has nothing to do with any sector other than farmers. If we want to deal with the objective of the nitrates directive, all the contributors to pollution must sit around the table to come up with real answers to solve the problem. Farmers contribute very little.
One-off rural housing was mentioned; we are naturally in favour of it. We support housing for families on their own farms. In general we should examine the issue. The Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, has made a fair effort to sort out the problem and that is positive. I do not know how many more times I will have to say that I am in favour of there being one farming organisation. I have said that time and again, but unless people are prepared to discuss the issue, there is no point broaching it.
It has been said that the IFA is reactive rather than proactive. We are very proactive, though the Government is not, and I can give an example. When it came to CAP reform, and we found that there were problems in the EU and that others were changing their minds, we produced a very good proactive policy. However, the Government, the Minister and the Department came up with no policy at all. They went over and tagged themselves onto someone else. We lead by example, and the Department would do well to follow our standards which seem to be much higher than what we have experienced.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. Dillon
It was said that farming is changing. I said it is changing in a significant way and that it will change more over the coming years.
One thing that may be said about decoupling is that farmers will farm their holdings from now on without distortions in the marketplace affecting the products they sell. The issue now is whether farming will be crippled with rules and regulations and with minders - the fellows with white coats. This arose earlier in the debate with the Minister. I can imagine——
Was the IFA president against the regulations we brought in?
Mr. Dillon
I am totally against the heavy-handed approach.
Is he against the regulations we discussed today? I would be disappointed if he was.
Mr. Dillon
I am clearly stating-——
I would be disappointed, personally, and this committee would be if he was against those regulations that we discussed today.
Mr. Dillon
The part of the regulations to which the Chairman refers relates to the heavy-handed approach of people going into houses. This is the part with which I totally disagree.
What houses?
Mr. Dillon
Decoupling will ultimately go ahead. At least the farmer produces the product for the consumer and the marketplace. The consumer has a big say and farmers will produce what the consumer wants as long as they are allowed to do so and are not regulated out of existence by the powers that be. The problem regarding the export of live cattle must be resolved. The Commissioner, who is supposed to be representing Europe and who seems more interested in cruelty than animal welfare, is proposing a method of transport from Ireland. To be fair, the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh, has done an excellent job up to now as regards live exports and I believe he will continue to do so in the future. I will be depending on him and offer him every possible support for his efforts.
One way to stamp out imported disease is to stop animals coming in. If that is against EU rules there is a problem. In the event, however, compensation must be paid. We cannot allow diseased animals to be imported from Europe to spread infection and have farmers going out of business as a result, without compensation. That is not acceptable.
I will now ask the general secretary, Mr. Michael Berkery, to address the committee.
Mr. Michael Berkery
At the outset I have heard some favourable comments on the chairman. Only then did I realise that it was a chairman in a different place and in a more adversarial context who was being talked about. The IFA knows the Chairman and is aware of some of his contributions and their influence on a positive Government policy towards farmers and their families. One thing to come across today has been the need for greater engagement, if that is possible. That is something I would like to develop on an issue basis. Senator Callanan talked about land use, for example. That is going to be a major challenge for the future because, as Senator Coonan should know, we can pretend that there is a living on 30 acres, but we need to fast forward. One's children will quickly invite one to join them in the real world. My kids say that about many things. I am not that old, but that is only in the last 30 years.
Thirty acres has been a problem for a long time.
Mr. Berkery
That is what I understood the Senator's philosophical point to be. We have to move forward. On the land use issue I would like to see a structured approach where the IFA would come forward with definite proposals. I greatly respect the committee and its cross-party involvement.
I can readily empathise with Deputy Ferris's north Kerry understanding of the pressures and the bewilderment of the individual farm family having to make a choice as to whether there is a future on the farm for another generation. That is what we are coping with every night at meetings throughout the country. It is useful for us to come here to engage in the democratic process.
As regards Deputy Upton's concern about nitrates, the buzzword of the moment is "derogation" and we are all latching on to it as the solution to a problem. There is a phrase, "The Minister will get you a derogation." For us the key is the conditions and the cost of compliance associated with the derogation. The president has said and I want to reiterate that neither Teagasc nor any other research body - even environmentally-based research institutes - have said to us that one livestock unit per acre is a threat, causes damage to the environment or is unsustainable. If somebody can scientifically demonstrate that it is, then agriculture really has a serious problem. That is what I want to say about the derogation. We must not start to talk about a derogation to have one cow to an acre. We cannot have a licensed system or be required to fill out many forms to be permitted to have one cow per acre. This is something the committee must realise. The idea of inspectors or farmers filling out paperwork seeking permission to have only one cow per acre is a step too far. We cannot go there.
Earlier in the meeting, the presentation by the Minister for Agriculture and Food set great store on an all-Ireland policy on animal health. Could we have an all-island policy on the nitrates directive? In south Armagh, Fermanagh or Tyrone, it is 250 kg per hectare. Across the water in north Wales and in England it is 250 kg per hectare on a grass-based system. That is why the issue has become such a difficult one for us.
Deputy Upton raised the storage issue, and rightly so, because there are basically three components. The reduced stocking required for compliance has a major impact on output, particularly in intensive areas and in regions where land is scarce. It is not easy to find 20% or 30% more land on an economic basis to survive. Many Land Commission farms in the Chairm an's own county are worked by good, intensive farmers. Those are the people who will be affected most by having to increase storage. They are probably in a difficult situation in terms of income in any case, prior to having to borrow for a useless waste of investment as they see it. The balance should be somewhere between. We have resolutely and continuously highlighted the problems and difficulties of point source pollution. This organisation has never defended anyone caught up or involved in point source pollution. However, now we are in an abstract theoretical type of world involving seepage and leaching and so on. It is a difficult science. There are scientists in the EPA, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Department of Agriculture and Food dealing with this issue. The IFA has assembled a team of scientists too. We have a body of eminent people on our side who will dispute and refute many of the assertions being made by the legislators. That is a comment on the storage situation.
There is a view as to when the closed period might be. Members know what is in the draft regulation. We will not deny that the months of December or November are acceptable or suitable times for spreading. January has been an excellent month in Senator Callanan's county. How can one explain to a farmer that the calendar prohibits him from spreading his normal manure? The point must be made that this is not nuclear waste. It is biological material that has come through an animal. Common sense suggests it is a fertiliser to be re-used in a recycling process. We must think about it that way. Some of the regulators are of a mindset which suggests it is a waste and, therefore, has to be recycled and so on. It is nothing of the sort. This is a big issue for us.
The president has amplified the three areas of concern, namely, the stocking rate, the storage and the spreading periods. If one concentrates the spreading periods as per the calendar, and there is a month of bad weather, as is likely to happen at some stage, the risk is that one will have an avalanche of people spreading - which is legal - as everybody would have to get out on the same day. That cannot be logical or sensible.
Deputy Wilkinson asked about rural housing. We have worked closely with the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív. He has been the first serious advocate in political life to come out and state some of the fundamentals. The President of the IFA, Mr. John Dillon, and myself——
On a point of clarification, what has he actually done?
Mr. Berkery
The Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, has had a big input into the spatial strategy. Earlier drafts of the spatial strategy indicate that it was more about the concept of growth centres and based on the village. The Minister has changed that around. He has drawn upon his first-hand knowledge in Connemara and west Galway and has found an acceptable way of dealing with this.
I have seen some county development plans, including the development plans for north Tipperary, where whole tracts of the countryside were sterilised with green ribbons which were ruled out for housing.
They knew it would not work.
Mr. Berkery
I was told——
On a point of order, the county development plan for north Tipperary is only in its draft stage yet. I did not see any submission from Mr. Berkery on the plan. Mr. Berkery is factually incorrect in what he says.
Mr. Berkery
The existing county development plan has been published. There are whole stretches of the county sterilised on that plan.
Mr. Berkery is like the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, and the Taoiseach himself, who said they would bring forward regulations to deal with once-off houses. They are all talk and no action.
Mr. Berkery
Although I know the members of the committee are no longer members of county councils, if development plans are coming up, I ask them to talk to councillors and encourage them to change the development plan to suit the rural parts of a county. That is what I did.
Mr. Berkery is misinforming this committee by saying that is what happens with the plan - it is only in its draft stage.
Mr. Berkery
I am sure that the IFA will make a submission .
I am on the record and can stand over it. The former chairman of the IFA in north Tipperary, Mr. Hoban, is on the environmental committee that deals with the draft development plan. If Mr. Berkery has issues, he should take them up with Mr. Hoban.
Mr. Berkery
May I conclude? For the record, I restate the IFA position on rural housing. We strongly support the strategy pursued by the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, in the broader spatial strategies of the Government. In Kerry, for example, we had problems. We also had problems in County Meath, where a central planning desktop approach is taking place that will sterilise vast tracts of the county. This is happening in many other counties and I have evidence for this.
That is an odd attitude.
It is a big problem.
Mr. Berkery
In a democracy, we cannot hide behind the concept of central planning and therefore we must stand up for our position.
The Planning Act 2000 that has passed the Houses of the Oireachtas——
Please let Mr. Berkery finish.
Mr. Berkery should cite facts when he comes before a committee.
Mr. Berkery
I will circulate to the Senator the full reports plus the maps which have been published in the Nenagh Guardian.
It may be of interest to councillors in Tipperary.
Mr. Berkery
I will circulate them. We have clarified the once-off housing issue.
My final point concerns Teagasc. Deputy Ferris spoke about the sale of assets in Teasgasc. The issue for us is that a budget exists. Some €130 million is set aside each year for Teagasc. Farm organisations have had to evolve with the changing circumstances and agendas in agriculture and Teagasc will have to move in the same way.
On the nitrates directive, we accept a Minister in any negotiations, whether it is the Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government or the Minister for Agriculture and Food, must rely on scientific facts. There is no point in a wish policy, or proposal, going to Brussels in any negotiations. Our understanding is that Teagasc recommended to Government a figure of 210, without derogation, which is one livestock unit per acre. It has been refuted and there has been much discussion over and back about it. Perhaps it is available to Government or to individuals under the freedom of information legislation so that one can ascertain precisely what was done. It is of fundamental importance that this truth should out, because on that basis we can strengthen the Government's hand in the negotiations and achieve an acceptable outcome for us in respect of the nitrates directive.
Some 14 other countries are standing in exactly the same status as Ireland now. They have not signed up to a nitrates plan. The British - including Northern Ireland - are at 250 kilograms. We need to operate on the basis of science and objective criteria. In the four year test that is applied, unless there is substantial improvement, one automatically drops down to 170 kilograms. The slide starts at a very early stage and three years will not take long to come.
We have many issues we need to decide on, such as who will determine where the benchmark for water quality is. Is it tested above the town sewerage or below it? Where are the samples taken? We need a benchmark that is objective and transparent. If that is the case, then the facts are irrefutable and there is no point in trying to avoid the issues.
Mr. Brendan Deasy
As most of the committee already know, I am on the board of Teagasc. I am in an awkward position because at the last board meeting I sought the advice that was given by Teagasc to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Department of Agriculture and Food. I was told - and it infuriated me - that Teagasc would not be allowed to be used as a political football.
I believe that 210 kg was what they recommended but they do not want to say it publicly. What they say is based on science and facts. It is one cow to the acre which is perfectly acceptable, yet now the Government suggest 170 kg in the draft recommendation. This is why we call for an overhaul of Teagasc. It needs to re-establish itself as independent of the Department of Agriculture and Food. It needs to provide independent scientific advice to farmers, the industry and to Government.
I can give an example. Last year, the budget was cut by €12 million and there was a carry over deficit of €3 million. In fairness to the board, they sold off assets worth €17 million and as I speak there is €20 million in the kitty. Rather than adjustments, piece by piece, there needs to be a complete overhaul of Teagasc to justify an investment of €150 million of taxpayers' money. I find it incredibly hard to understand and unacceptable that I as a board member am not told what advice is given to Government.
Mr. Dunne
There is a great deal of discussion on the nitrates directives as to whether it should be 170 kg, 210 kg or 250 kg per hectare. It is important to point out that there is not a relationship between stocking rate and a threat to the environment. In the nitrates directive there is a connection, but in reality there is not. What is important is how you manage organic manure. What poses a threat to the environment is how one manages one's business. The idea that one uses only 170 kg per hectare under the action programme is not correct. It is not a requirement to put 170 kg per hectare in.
The nitrates directive should not be viewed in a vacuum. At least 20 other directives that I am aware of impact on the issue of water quality and the nitrates directive cannot be taken in isolation. For example, we have had the phosphorus regulations since the early 1990s and as a result by-laws were implemented in different counties. Those regulations have an impact on water quality also. It is untrue to state that because Ireland did not introduce a draft action programme in 1990 the water quality has suffered in some way. The water quality is improving. For our water to reach the highest EPA standard, it has to achieve a 25% higher rate than the norm in the other OECD countries. In other words, our water grading system is different and water, including ground and other water, that is graded quality two in Ireland would be first grade in any other country.
The reason we have a different system is that our water quality is so good. I have been told by the EPA that water on the Continent is not tested for phosphorus, because there is no hope of reducing such high levels to a respectable figure. We are suffering as a result of the quality of our water.
In response to Deputy Hayes, it is possible that in the Dáil, the Minister for Agriculture and Food was waving the booklet on the code of good agricultural practice. The IFA signed up to the code of practice in 1985, which is quite a while ago. Many of the recommendations have changed since then - in fact all the Teagasc recommendations on fertiliser have changed. The code of practice needs to be addressed. Even at that, as it is written it is an aspirational document. It is one thing to sign up a document stating that we would like to drive a Ferrari, but it is another matter to put it into law that everybody in the country should be driving a Ferrari. It is a good code of practice, but some of the recommendations are out of date and it needs to be revisited.
We must understand that derogation from the action programme is in the gift of the EU Commission. It is the responsibility of the Irish Government to bring in an action programme. The Government, having introduced an action programme which is not acceptable, must submit it to the Commission and then we have to fight our case to get a derogation from the Commission. In other words, the Government is not honouring its commitment to agriculture by placing those involved in agriculture in a situation where some civil servant in the European Commission decides whether we get a derogation. At a minimum we should be allowed 210 kg per hectare with a possibility of 250 kg per hectare without it costing too much money.
Let me give the committee an insight into complying with the regulations, Pig farmers are licensed with the EPA and are prohibited from spreading organic fertiliser from 1 October until the 1 March. The farmer to whom I spoke applied to the EPA in January because the weather was so good for a derogation to spread pig slurry on ground that was just about to be ploughed. The EPA has not yet replied to that request. Thousands of acres have been ploughed that are lost to that pig farmer at this stage. That is an example of why farmers' fear the imposition of regulations.
We would ask for members' support in making the point that responsibility for the implementation of the action programme rests with the Irish Government, which should take on that responsibility. If the Government needs to argue the case for 210, we have compiled information that backs that case. There is no connection between stocking rate and the threat to water quality.
I was watching the discussion in the office and, as a member of the IFA, I was somewhat concerned that Deputy Hayes appeared to be castigating the IFA for signing up to the directive. I am sorry if I misread his comments.
Let me clarify that.
I will withdraw that remark.
I asked the president of the IFA to clarify the position because the Minister for Agriculture and Food did so during Question Time last week. The Senator may check the Official Report. He should not lecture me on castigating the IFA. I asked for clarification and I thank the IFA for clarifying the issue.
I apologise to Deputy Hayes if I misquoted him. I wanted to point out that it was the then Minister, Mr. Yates, who signed the foreword to that document in July 1996. We are all in this together and there is no point in questioning anybody's motives. It is obvious that the difficulties were not addressed in 1996 to the extent they should have been. It is now incumbent on all sides to seek a resolution rather than calling into question the position taken up back then.
My understanding of the situation, taking all sides into account, is that we are trying to resolve this. I did not mean to cast any aspersions.
Everyone here agrees with the position put forward, but I cannot understand why we have to wait until the last minute to deal with the nitrate problem when it has been flagged for the last few years. In fairness, there is a good case to be made for the use of 210 kg per hectare of organic nitrogen, which is the equivalent of one cow to the acre.
I would fully agree with the position on spreading slurry. The Environmental Protection Agency should be more proactive here. The Senator mentioned a pig farmer. I know from my own area of the problems pig farmers have trying to hold slurry. They try to get rid of it and have applied for a licence to do so. There is something wrong if they applied in January and have not heard anything yet.
With regard to Alan Dukes's appointment, he lost his seat and I would ask Mr. Dillon whether he would oppose Deputy Tom Parlon's appointment to some body if he lost his seat at the next election. There are others, ourselves included, whose time may come for different appointments. I would ask everyone to respect the appointment of Alan Dukes.
Some people have said that Eamon Ó Cuív has been the leader. As someone who has been involved in county councils until a few months ago, I have to say that it has never been harder to get planning permission through for once-off houses than it is now. There are more refusals at council level now than two or three years ago. We have been promised proposals on this issue by everyone from the Taoiseach down and they have not materialised.
Council charges are a very emotive issue and I believe that in future negotiations with the Government the boot needs to be put in. Backbenchers and the Opposition can do little; it is at the negotiating table that agreement needs to be hammered out. The truth is that county council members are forced into imposing those charges because of the lack of funding for local authorities.
I would like to comment on two issues. First, has the IFA approached the Ulster Farmers' Union on the issue of an all Ireland directive on nitrates? It is something that makes sense as Ireland is an island, but it obviously has to be politically driven. Has this been raised with the Minister for Agriculture and Food or with the Taoiseach? The second point is on single rural cottages. In my county, and in particular in south Kerry, the council receives between 30 and 40 section 140 applications per month. I would like to see the IFA strongly supporting the building of houses in rural Ireland for people who are living or working in the area. What is happening and is being ignored is that the market is being driven way beyond the means of local people by the development of holiday homes, especially in scenic areas. I have had several debates with the IFA in Kerry and I know they are effectively supporting holiday homes. This is detrimental.
I thank Mr. Berkery for his response to the land utilisation programme proposal which I made. I think there is solid work to be done.
If Mr. Berkery made a submission to the committee it could be used as part of its work programme.
Mr. Berkery
We will do that. I would like to make one point which escaped me during the debate on Tipperary North Council. It is about an earlier segment of this meeting when the Minister was present and the issue was raised as to whether we supported the legislation which has just been passed. A response was given but new information came into the public domain today, certainly new to me. That is the existence of a code of practice in operation where those officers go on to farms. It is the first time I have heard of that. I am waiting to get a copy of it because it is a unilateral code of practice that has been produced by public officials themselves. We have had neither sight of it not involvement in it, nor have we agreed in any way to it. I want to inform the committee of that. It is a welcome development if it covers the points because the issue is proportionality.
There was legislation today that would be the equivalent of emergency legislation in a normal constitutional democracy. Perhaps that level of power is required to deal with individuals. I do not want to enter into a debate on that. However there is a proportionality and prima facie evidence required and we have had a couple of incidents where it has the potential to become a very contentious area between public officials and individual farmers. I would like to see the code of practice. If it meets our requirements we will agree with it without difficulty, but we have not seen it nor have we been informed about it. I hope it is not a unilateral code of practice with all of the powers and onus of proof on one side and carte blanche on the other side.
Mr. Dillon
I would like to respond to Deputy Hayes. I am not opposed to Alan Dukes's appointment. I am amazed at his appointment and amazed he has taken the position. That is not opposing it. My predecessor is a politician now who will do his own thing and I will not interfere as I am not involved in politics, only the politics of farming. I do not think there is any ambiguity about it.
With regard to one-off rural housing and the difficulties involved in obtaining planning permission, the IFA had a discussion with the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, and his response in the spatial strategy is to get that implemented in every county council. I think we will make progress if that is possible. The county councils are playing their own game behind the scenes and they are not working in accordance to what they agreed with the Minister.
On the issue of charges I do not think Deputy Hayes can be absolved from responsibility and leave it with the IFA. We should be putting forward something in partnership. The members are privileged people and are paid to do a job unlike ourselves at the IFA.
Does the committee agree that we should invite officials from the Department of Agriculture and Food and the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government to discuss the latest directive?
We also need to invite the Minister for Agriculture to appear before the committee.
That is on our list. A copy of today's submission will be sent to the Departments of Agriculture and Food and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. When the relevant officials come to the committee, representatives of the IFA and other organisations may attend. This has been a very constructive meeting. The IFA always attends with a good delegation.
Mr. Dillon
We are very proactive.
There is no doubt about it. The IFA is nearly as proactive as the Minister, even though it may not agree with me on that. We are always delighted to have the IFA to the committee. Such meetings have always been very constructive and today's is no different. I thank Mr. Dillon and his colleagues and wish them the best of luck. I wish to be associated with Senator Callanan's remarks in congratulating Mr. Dillon and his deputy on their re-appointment for a further two years.
We need more meetings like this with the IFA. Many issues need to be discussed and addressed - the nitrates directive is just one such issue. Members of the Houses have different agendas. We need further explanation on various issues and it is right that the IFA should attend the committee to put forward its views.
The work programme has been agreed, which is why the IFA is here today. That is how we decide our business and there will be other opportunities for the IFA to attend.
Mr. Berkery
Reference was made to the Minister. His first two months as president of the European Agriculture and Fisheries Council have gone smoothly. Our understanding, from being in the precincts and presence of council discussions, is that he has been extremely successful, which should be noted as the Presidency will not come around again for a long time.
The joint committee adjourned at 13.32 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 3 March 2004.