Skip to main content
Normal View

Wednesday, 18 Feb 2004

Other Questions.

Nitrates Directive.

Questions (23)

Simon Coveney

Question:

92 Mr. Coveney asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if his Department has had discussions with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government with respect to the nitrates directive; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4834/04]

View answer

Oral answers (21 contributions)

The implementation of the nitrates directive is a matter for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in the first instance. A draft action programme giving effect to the directive, which was prepared by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in conjunction with my Department and in consultation with Teagasc, was presented to representatives of the main farming organisations and other stakeholders in December 2003. A period of two months, which was provided for stakeholders to submit their comments on the document in writing to either or both Departments runs until tomorrow, 19 February 2004. Definitive proposals for an action programme will be submitted to the European Commission when the consultation process is finished and consideration has been given to the various submissions.

May I ask the Chair why Question No. 106 was not taken with Question No. 92, as they are more or less identical? We would have had more time to discuss the issue if the questions had been taken together.

The Chair has no control over such matters.

Is the Minister aware that the nitrates directive is the single biggest issue being discussed in agricultural circles at the moment? It is of huge concern to farmers in our part of the country and elsewhere. As the Minister for Agriculture and Food is responsible for ensuring that farming continues in a viable manner, does he accept that the closure period, whereby farmers would not be able to spread any slurry for three and a half months in the year, is not a workable proposal for practical farms? It may make sense in other European countries where the ground may be frozen for two to three months of the year. However, in Ireland, with the long growing season, it is an unsuitable measure. What are the Minister's views on that?

The second issue of concern is the proposal for storage capacity that farmers will be required to have in their yards, as a result of this long closure period. The majority of farmers would accept, though they will not say it officially, closure for one month a year, say in December. However, expecting farmers to have storage for 16 weeks in the south, 20 weeks in the midlands and west and 24 weeks in the north-west will make commercial farming non-viable in the future.

The nitrates directive has been in place for 13 years. The time has come for the matter to be addressed due to environmental and legal reasons. Ireland is currently before the European Court and a judgment is due in the coming weeks. There is no option, legally or otherwise, but to address this 1991 directive. It has been put on the long finger for too long. I am not apportioning any blame, as I am as much to blame as anybody else.

The Minister is more to blame than anybody else.

In the directive, there is a limit of 170 kg. per hectare. The draft Irish proposal has asked for a limit of 250 kg. per hectare. Hopefully by tomorrow, the stakeholders, the farming organisations and others will have responded to the draft proposal. The final proposal will then be sent to Brussels. The main aim is to get derogation on the limit up to 250 kg. The majority of farmers will be excluded by this limit and will not have problems with it.

The closure period for the application of fertiliser on land is based on the 1996 code of good farming practice document, which the farming bodies were involved in drawing up. Teagasc is directly involved with individual farmers in drawing up inventories of the capacity requirements of their farms, called the Farm Facilities Survey. With good planning in this area, this matter can be ameliorated too.

It is most important to address this problem environmentally and legally. The substantial net payments that Ireland receives are being jeopardised because of non-compliance with this directive. I appreciate some of the difficulties with this directive. However, they are not insurmountable and, with good forward planning, they can be implemented with the derogations sought and at the minimum cost to farmers.

For the last year, we have listened to the term "freedom to farm". However, at the first hurdle, the situation is more draconian than any other previous red tape situation. Would the Minister agree that if the proposals remain in their current form, they will reduce the options open for those in the dairy industry in particular who were told to either upsize to stand still, get more land, decrease production or forgo single farm payments? Does the Minister believe there is a chance of securing an increase on the 170 kg. level? Does he believe the 250 kg. or 210 kg. level will be agreed? Has he looked at the concept of nitrogen vulnerable zones rather than an all-country classification? Does he agree that there is scope for looking at such a system and if not, why?

Is it not the case that Northern Ireland has successfully applied for a derogation, allowing Northern Irish farmers to apply 250 kg. of organic nitrogen per hectare? If so, why should there be difficulties in the South? Is the Minister blaming farmers and farming organisations for the length of the proposed closure period because they recommended it through good practice proposals? If he is, I am not hearing that from farming organisations.

Does the Minister agree with Teagasc's draft action programme that provides for storage periods at individual farm levels less than the specified minimum periods where it can be demonstrated that it is consistent with reducing pollution potential? In other words, there is an opening for reducing the amount. Does the Minister agree that these proposals will involve a significant, in some cases insurmountable, expense for farmers if they have to provide such storage facilities?

The Minister claims that the majority of farmers will not be affected by these proposals. Will the Department, however, spearhead the roll-out of anaerobic digestion programmes given their successful application in reducing nitrate problems on land? Can the Department look at the efficient management of nutrients more proactively, rather than simply saying it aims to reduce nitrates?

There are many ways of proactively addressing this problem. One of the reasons farmers are advised not to put out nitrogen for a number of weeks is that grass growth may not be as vigorous in those months as in others. If grass growth is vigorous it absorbs the nitrogen; otherwise it is leached off into rivers and streams.

A proposal must be submitted to Brussels before a derogation will be considered as the Commission cannot consider the situation until it receives a proposal. Tomorrow is the final day for responses from stakeholders and farming organisations. The proposal will be submitted to Brussels and I am confident that a limit of up to 250 kg. per hectare, like in Northern Ireland, will be achieved. Denmark received a derogation of up to 230 kg. per hectare. However, these derogations were only considered when the applications were made.

With regard to storage capacity and anaerobic digestion, individual farmers can make a case to the competent authority, which is the local authority, and get a derogation for whatever system they have. The Departments of Agriculture and Food and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, together with the farming organisations, signed up to the 1996 protection of waters from pollution by nitrates directive. It is not a figment of anyone's imagination.

It was okay to sign up in 1996 because it was felt it would never see the light of day. However, Ireland is now before the courts, 13 years after the 1991 directive. Up to 100,000 farmers are below the 170 kg. per hectare limit. Up to another 6,000 farmers will be excluded if the 210 kg. is set as the limit. Another 2,500 farmers will be excluded at 230 kg. per hectare. Almost all farmers would be excluded if the limit was 250 kg. per hectare.

Last year the Department was asked for additional money for the REPS and we got an additional €70 million. We were also asked for additional money for farm waste management systems for which we got a substantial increase, as well as an increase in thresholds in the dairy hygiene regulations to exclude waste and so on. That was in preparation for this nitrates directive. I am confident that we can get the derogations from Brussels which will allow the REPS continue, which is worth €260 million per annum to Irish farmers. Last year the area-based compensatory payment scheme was held up for a number of weeks because we had failed to address the problem of the nitrates directive. In my view, we should send our application to Brussels and then seek the derogations which will make it possible, so there will not be an undue burden on farmers to comply with the directive.

What about the nitrogen vulnerable zones?

Does the Minister believe that this will spell the end of commercial farming as we know it? Those using a high quantity of fertiliser are the top class farmers and will be extremely badly hit. Will the Minister comment on that?

If the derogation is conceded for 250 kg. that implies that there is no pollution factor, no threat to the water supply and so on. Will the Minister agree that will impose a serious financial burden on those people who fall outside that who have higher applications? Is there any way that the bureaucracy and financial implications can be addressed to alleviate that problem?

It was suggested to me that water quality in our rivers is improving at the moment. Is the court case the only reason for the Minister's insistence that we implement the directive at this stage irrespective of the consequences to farmers?

I thank the Minister for his detailed answers. I accept that he will make efforts to get a derogation to move from 170 kg. to 250 kg. but will he also seek a derogation for the closure periods? Does he accept that grass grows in October and sometimes into November? Certainly last winter it did.

Will the Minister please clarify the policy on the nitrogen vulnerable zones? Does he see any opening for those?

On the final point, Government policy advocates a national zone. We believe that is the right way to go. The intensive farmers will be most affected by the nitrates directive. In yesterday's Farming Independent the Teagasc expert on dairying showed that a person with 100 acres, or 40 hectares, of land can produce up to 104,000 gallons from that land and still remain within the 210 kg per hectare limit. Good farming practice is essential.

In response to Deputy Coveney, I accept that grass grows in winter months. There is no month of the year in the benign constituency that Deputy O'Keeffe and I represent when we do not cut our lawns and have chores to do around the garden because there is growth virtually all year round.

That is true.

We will make those points to Brussels in that context too. In response to Deputy Upton, we are not serious offenders in regard to over-application of nitrogen and phosphates. Nevertheless, there is some pollution of our streams and rivers which are an important asset that we must maintain. With good farming practice there is no need for the level of application we have in many instances. It has been shown, for example, that very few farmers carry out soil analysis to see exactly the amount of fertilisation needed for their soil. It comes down to sensible, good farming practice and for that reason, apart from the legal implications of the court case and the vulnerability of our very large payments under REPS and other schemes, if we do not comply with the directive, they too will be affected. For good environmental reasons it is important that we comply with this directive.

Farm Waste Management.

Questions (24)

Seán Ryan

Question:

93 Mr. S. Ryan asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the amount of meat and bonemeal currently awaiting disposal; the estimated cost of disposing of this waste; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4938/04]

View answer

Oral answers (14 contributions)

I have answered this as a priority question. At present meat and bonemeal is being produced at a rate of 2,500 tonnes per week, which is 125,000 tonnes per annum, in Ireland. In the main, this is exported expeditiously for incineration abroad. Of the commercially owned stocks of meal in store, it is estimated that the material awaiting disposal totals nearly 46,000 tonnes. The cost of disposing of the residual 172,000 tonnes of meal stored in Ireland since the BSE crisis of 2001 will total €24 million. This was the subject of an EU-wide tender adjudicated last December. This material will begin to be moved abroad for incineration this week.

Would the Minister of State risk making any predictions on the future stocks of meat and bonemeal and how he sees that shaping up in the coming years?

The good news story is that the level of BSE has dropped dramatically over recent years, proving that the policy adopted at the insistence of the European Union has been successful and hopefully Ireland will soon be free of BSE. The problem will always have a tail but the figures speak for themselves. I do not have the exact figures before me now but previous parliamentary questions show that the graph is going in the right direction.

I do not know if the Minister of State can see the future but does he envisage a time when meat and bonemeal may revert to its previous use as a very important soil additive, or has that day gone since the BSE crisis? Meanwhile, is he aware of the very deep concerns expressed by communities, for example in Edenderry in Offaly, which are very unhappy about the prospective plans to burn meat and bonemeal in their area? Has he considered whether other technologies about which I have previously asked, such as alkaline hydrolysis or whatever, are worthy of consideration, particularly as the EU steering committee has passed this technology for non-hazardous meat and bonemeal?

I would not like to speculate on what is happening in Edenderry. I leave that to the Deputy.

Does the Minister of State know about it?

The Minister of State will be up there shortly.

It is in my new constituency. I hope we can some day use meat and bonemeal which is a very valuable resource. However, I do not wish to speculate on that. Deputy Sargent has several times raised the question of alternative methods of disposal of animal by-products, as has Deputy Upton. Certain regulations are allowed by the EU animal by-products regulation whereby certain processes can be used in the treatment of animal by-products. The Deputy referred specifically to alkaline hydrolysis and the Minister has answered questions here to that effect, stating that he would like to see the day when that might happen. The process involves treating the animal by-products in an alkaline solution at 150 degrees Celsius for up to six hours in a sealed container.

Several issues must be addressed, particularly the large volume of highly alkalised solution produced during the process which, in turn, even following further treatment, would have to be disposed of possibly by incineration or co-incineration. There is doubt about its effectiveness in the disposal of a mass powdery material such as meat and bonemeal. It has not been tested adequately for this purpose. Alkaline hydrolysis may in future offer a viable alternative to the rendering of some animal by-products. We would all love to see that day, but there is a long way to go in that regard.

Are tests being done?

Tests are being done on an ongoing basis, not only in this country but also in other countries.

Has any research been done on ways, other than incineration, of disposing of meat and bonemeal? Is material from Northern Ireland being disposed of in landfills in the South of Ireland?

There is no material being disposed of in the South of Ireland. A substantial amount of meat and bonemeal is exported to landfill in Northern Ireland. However, that is a decision for the people there. The only option open to the Department and the rendering companies is to move it abroad for incineration. It is a valuable product which is used in France, Germany and other countries for road and bridge building and as a fertiliser following incineration. We will have a debate on this issue in future. Our position is that it must be exported.

Does the Minister know the weekly cost to the Department of storing such material? He may not have the figures with him.

I do not have the figures with me. The storage costs to Ireland are for the 172,000 tonnes which built up over the years. Since last year the responsibility has been handed to the rendering companies. There is no additional cost at present. We hope to move that 172,000 tonnes from the country by the end of 2004, which would result in no cost to the Department of Agriculture and Food. The cost is approximately €24 million for storage and €146 million for disposal.

Commonage Division.

Questions (25)

Jim O'Keeffe

Question:

94 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the position in relation to commonage here; the total area involved; and his policy approach to the division thereof. [5039/04]

View answer

Oral answers (9 contributions)

The area of land held in common throughout the country is estimated to be in excess of 500,000 hectares. For the most part, this land is privately owned and, as with other privately owned land, decisions affecting its structure are a matter for the owners or shareholders. The Department provided for some time a commonage division and re-arrangement service, but this was discontinued in 1998 following a review of its operation.

I am interested to know why the practice was discontinued. What was the policy behind that decision? I am surprised there is so much commonage. The Minister's figures seem to suggest there are more than 1 million acres of commonage. What is the Government's view on commonage and disease control? Is the existence of such a large amount of commonage considered helpful from the point of view of disease control or is the inevitable inter-mixing of animals considered to be a factor in that regard? Is the Government adopting a policy of neutrality on the issue of division?

I presume the Deputy is aware that much of this work was carried out by the Land Commission for a long number of years. It provided technical and legal assistance free of charge to farmers who wished to divide commonage land into individually held plots or to carry out a voluntary exchange of plots of land to improve the layout of their farms. The experience in my constituency was limited, but it was a headache for the Department and people, including public representatives, in the west, for example.

In 1998 the Department took the decision to withdraw from voluntary commonage division but to complete, where possible, cases which were already in hand. There was a combination of factors which led to the decision to terminate this service. These included a lack of staff resources for commonage division work which resulted in an unsatisfactory level for other farmers, and participation in REPS, which will answer the Deputy's question about disease control, because it was considered to be a more environmentally acceptable solution to the problem of overgrazing than the division of commonage. The demand for commonage partition reduced considerably following the introduction of REPS because commonage land attracted special payments. Much commonage is not suitable for division due to the nature of the terrain and the need for sheep, in particular, to graze over an extensive terrain.

Approximately 80% of commonage is mountain commonage and is mainly located in areas known as special areas of conservation. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has responsibility for these areas. Due to their status as wild, remote and long-established natural places for flora and fauna, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government does not wish SACs to be harmed or converted to damaging or intensive agricultural usage. The operation of the commonage division or "plottery" arrangements is not contingent on the involvement of the Department of Agriculture and Food.

It has always been open to shareholders to arrange privately for the division of their commonage where all were in favour of it. There were good reasons for the Department to exempt itself from being involved. Given the utilisation of resources, Department policy is to allow shareholders to make their own arrangements about commonage division. The level of personnel required and the expense which a wholesale scheme of sub-division would impose on the taxpayer are also important considerations.

I take it from the Minister of State's reply that this is an extension of the Government's principle of neutrality because it is allowing the issue to remain as it is. Perhaps that is the right approach. There are advantages from the point of view of REPS and mountain sheep grazing. However, I am concerned about disease control. Does the Minister of State accept there may be a problem with disease control when cattle mix on commonage? How can that be addressed?

It is usually sheep which graze on most of the commonage of which I am aware.

I accept that, but it is not always only sheep.

That would be exceptional. Cattle are controlled in the normal way. The Department has strict controls. I dealt with a case recently where two farmers from the same family tried to operate together in a commonage area with cattle and the Department imposed strict regulations.

As regards REPS, the number of sheep on commonage has been significantly reduced. There is an attractive package for farmers if they avail of REPS. However, part of the deal is that they must take the sheep from the mountains. The position has improved considerably from what it was some years ago. That reflects other factors, such as the level of controls imposed.

The CMMS measures and other tracking and traceability systems mean there is not a problem with cattle. I am not aware of any cases where it has happened. The opposite is so in the cases I have dealt with in the Department.

My experience of commonage issues relates to Ring commons in north County Dublin, otherwise known as the Bog of the Ring. Is it possible to take any action against dumping on commonage, which is a problem, or illegally fencing it off in the hope that such action will not be contested? Is the Department aware of that issue? Does it have advice for people who can legitimately use the commonage areas but are thwarted from doing so either by illegal dumping or fencing?

I am not aware of the matters to which the Deputy refers, but I understand his point. That is a matter for the local authority and Dúchas. If the Deputy gives me the details, I will be happy to follow the matter up with these organizations.

A section of the Land Act 1939 makes provision for fencing, but it is a very complicated process. If the Deputy gives me the details I will come back to him with a response on that matter.

Poultry Industry.

Questions (26)

Michael D. Higgins

Question:

95 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food his plans to protect the Irish poultry industry from cheap imports of chicken from non-EU countries; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4919/04]

View answer

Oral answers (8 contributions)

In accordance with WTO arrangements, imports of poultry meat from non-EU countries may enter the EU and be sold on the EU market. It is, however, a condition of entry that meat must comply with EU veterinary and hygiene standards. In particular, the EU Commission must approve the country of origin and the establishment in which the product was produced in advance of importation. The granting of approvals is dependent on such factors as the animal health status of the country, the adequacy of its veterinary structures, the facilities of the production establishment and employment of hygiene practices. Third country food processing establishments intending to export to the EU are inspected by the Food and Veterinary Office of the European Commission and where they do not meet the required standards the export licence is removed.

Consumers have the right to the maximum amount of information about the food they are offered for sale so they can make informed choices about their purchases. With that in mind, the Deputy will be aware that I recently made two statutory instruments concerning the labelling of poultry meat. In introducing these regulations, I took account of the recommendations of the food labelling group and also the findings of a recent consumer survey I commissioned to ascertain consumer preferences regarding labelling. The first of these regulations requires poultry meat originating in a country outside the EU to bear an indication of the country of origin when offered for sale in retail premises. The second requires information regarding class, price per unit weight, and condition and slaughterhouse details in respect of loose poultry meat to be provided to the consumer. Heretofore, while these labelling indications have been compulsory for pre-packaged poultry meat, it had not been a requirement to provide this information for poultry meat sold loose.

I thank the Minister for his answer. While I particularly welcome the labelling requirement, there seems to have been a knee-jerk reaction. Every time there is a crisis we have a fire brigade action. I welcome the establishment of the food labelling group and its recommendations. However, we only had an immediate and prompt response because of the outbreak of avian influenza. I would like to see a considerably more pro-active approach to labelling and information on food products in general.

As there is a significant cost factor, the Irish processor, restaurateur and those manufacturing other value-added products are much more likely to import cheap poultry meat. How could the promotion of Irish poultry products be enhanced to encourage people to buy home produced product where we have a clear track record in traceability that is much more tangible than for products from third countries?

Unusually, Deputy Upton is being a little hard on the Department. I established the food labelling group in 2000, which was long before the outbreak of avian influenza in Thailand. Last year I initiated a consumer survey to determine consumer attitudes to food labelling. The food labelling group made 36 recommendations, which I have implemented in so far as I could. For example, the Food Safety Authority is now a one-stop shop for the enforcement of regulations. Previously the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment helped the Department of Agriculture and Food and a multiplicity of Departments had some responsibility.

While I would like to see the issue of beef for consumption in restaurants and the catering industry addressed at the earliest opportunity, it is beyond my reach. It is a matter for the Commission to ensure that people know the origin of beef on menus in various catering establishments. The Commission has promised a report on this matter by March. I hope we will be able to also address this matter, as the vast majority of consumers want to know the origin of food they purchase whether in retail outlets or catering establishments.

The Irish poultry industry is sizeable and concentrated. It exports about €120 million of produce per annum. As we produce about 140,000 tonnes, it is well worth promoting. I agree with the Deputy in that it needs to use the most up-to-date technology and offer consumer cuts and the most convenient products possible. The industry is subject to imports that are relatively cheaper than Irish produce. However, the vast majority of consumers would like to get Irish poultry if they could get it in a convenient way.

We import about 46,000 tonnes, which is controlled by rigorous regulation. I agree with the Deputy that the industry needs to be given assistance and I will raise the matter with Enterprise Ireland, which is the relevant body for supporting and developing the industry here.

When I spoke of a fire brigade action, I meant that labelling was introduced within about a week of the avian influenza outbreak. I do not believe I am being harsh on the Department in mentioning that fact. The legislation can be introduced rapidly when we appear to have a crisis. Otherwise we sit back and wait for something to happen.

While I appreciate it is not the Minister's responsibility, is he satisfied that the Food and Veterinary Office is provided with sufficient resources? Is he happy with the level of resources available and with the level of inspection in third countries? Following the avian influenza outbreak it became clear that we also needed to highlight animal welfare issues.

Ireland is very pro-active on food safety and was one of the first European Union countries to establish a food safety authority. In line with demand that this be independent of the Department of Agriculture and Food and the farming sector, it is under the aegis of the Department of Health and Children. There was no scare prior to my establishing the food labelling group as I felt it important to have labelling for safety reasons, to outline the possible presence of allergens and to address the accuracy of claims on some labels, which are occasionally outrageous. These matters are now being addressed. Most people would agree that it is very objective and doing an excellent job. I will take the suggestions made by the Deputy to see how we can further enhance the safety of food.

The Minister stated that we have very rigorous regulations. Would he agree that many consumers purchase items believing them to be Irish? In many cases this is not so, due to deceptive labelling. While I welcome his initiative on labelling and his mission statement for the EU Presidency that he would seek to enhance labelling measures, would he agree that the Food and Veterinary Office was very slow off the mark following the outbreak of avian influenza in Thailand? There was word of avian influenza on the street among traders in Thailand last December. However, the EU only took action after Japan banned the import of chicken. This approach leaves much to be desired.

Would the Minister agree that the outbreak of avian influenza has focused minds on the EU's battery hen directive? Would he agree that it might bring forward its implementation given the warning about intensive rearing of poultry? Would the Minister be able to emulate outlets in Britain such as Tesco, Sainsburys and Waitrose, which have strong "buy British" campaigns? Is there anything in law preventing us from being as strident about Irish poultry products here, which could assure the public that they can buy Irish produce that is clearly labelled?

On the question of the FVO, Deputy Upton also asked whether I was satisfied that it is adequately resourced and staffed. The information I have from the EU is that it has sufficient resources and staff and that it closely monitors establishments outside the EU and ports of entry into EU countries, including Ireland. We must take its assurances at face value.

The matter of labelling has become considerably more important. The food labelling group which I established in 2000 has been extremely helpful in this regard. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland has done a superb job in giving confidence to consumers. In the matter of poultry meat, we are always faced with a problem. Within the EU, we export 1.5 times as much poultry meat as we import. It is an important trading operation. Nonetheless, Irish poultry meat is strongly promoted. When it comes to tendering for supply to retailers and establishments, including hospitals and prisons, the lowest tenderer must get the contract as long as the meat is supplied by an EU country.

It can be confusing for consumers where there has been re-working of products within a European country, in other words, where a product is imported from a third country and re-worked within the country that is labelled as its country of origin. About a year ago it was discovered that poultry imported to Ireland from Holland contained non-poultry proteins. It was quite safe to eat, but nonetheless it had been reworked. We must be vigilant to ensure that labelling is accurate and contains no false claims. The labelling of the country of origin and the establishment in which the product is produced must be adhered to along the chain of supply. Consumers must be assured of that.

Gender Equality.

Questions (27)

Emmet Stagg

Question:

96 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food his plans to establish a dedicated women in agriculture unit in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4944/04]

View answer

Oral answers (3 contributions)

In 1999 I established an advisory committee to advise on the role of women in agriculture and rural communities. The advisory committee's report, published in September 2000, contained 36 recommendations covering a broad range of policy and operational areas. While recognising the contribution of women to agriculture, it is clear from an analysis of the recommendations that the advisory committee's central concerns were issues affecting women in rural communities more generally.

Some of the recommendations of the report were overtaken by a range of developments, including the establishment of the national rural development forum which meets in open session twice a year and provides a forum for continued attention to many of the issues raised in the report. It should also be noted that, subsequent to the publication of the report, the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs was established. Notwithstanding the change in remit of my Department, the advisory committee's recommendations have been pursued by my Department and a comprehensive progress report on the recommendations relevant to Departments and agencies has been finalised. This provides ample evidence that the recommendations have been fully taken into account by all the relevant Departments and agencies.

In leading the development of agriculture my objectives include the retention of the maximum number of farm families and ensuring that farming is an attractive career option for young people generally. Policies pursued by my Department are geared towards achieving these objectives. The schemes operated by my Department do not discriminate on grounds of gender. I also note that farm and community organisations have been provided with more than €500,00 under the National Development Plan 2000-2006 to promote female participation and representation. I am disappointed that there has as yet been no nomination of women by any of the farm organisations for appointment to the boards of statutory bodies operating under the aegis of my Department. Taking these factors together I am not convinced that the establishment of a dedicated unit dealing exclusively with the role of women in agriculture is necessary.

I understand what the Minister is saying about the spread of responsibilities. However, one of the difficulties is that there is no fixed unit within the Department of Agriculture and Food to address issues of women in farming. On the matter of gender balance, I remind the Minister of what was said in a recent publication of the Department. There is example after example of references to the farmer and "his" land, "his" pension, and "his" rights and a description of how the farmer leaves the land to "his son". This does not imply much progress in terms of gender balance. We should recognise that women have an important role.

However, other substantial issues need to be addressed. There is the matter of access to herd numbers. The Department recommended the formation of partnerships, but setting up or establishing a partnership in farming in rural Ireland can often be difficult. Does the Minister think some incentives should be put in place to help promote this?

I accept the Deputy's points. I would like to see the improvement of all the Departments' regulations and schemes so that we do not see this type of terminology. In particular, we should avoid derogatory terminology such as "adult dependant" when referring to a real person in a family.

There are examples of where partnerships and joint ownership can be promoted in farming. I will investigate to what extent this can be done. I know, for example, that in recent years farmers have been obliged to make revenue and social insurance payments, which is a good thing. They are entitled to a contributory pension as a result. However, this contribution system is for the head of the household. The unfortunate woman of the house is regarded as an adult dependant when it comes to her pension and must make do with a non-contributory pension. This problem could be alleviated by joint ownership. Throughout the legal system provision should be made for partnerships, joint ownership, joint herd numbers and so on to ensure there is equal treatment for husbands and wives in rural areas. The current system can lead to humiliation, especially in published literature. It also results in unfairness in social welfare schemes. I will take the Deputy's points into account.

Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.

Top
Share