Hugh Byrne
Ceist:7 Mr. H. Byrne asked the Minister for the Environment the implications, if any, for his Department of the suspension of the control of farm pollution scheme. [9962/95]
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Control of Farm Pollution Scheme.
Chris Flood
Ceist:36 Mr. Flood asked the Minister for the Environment the implications, if any, for his Department of the suspension of the control of farm pollution scheme. [9961/95]
Gerard Collins
Ceist:61 Mr. Collins asked the Minister for the Environment the plans, if any, he has to study the environmental impact of the Government's decision to shut down the control of farm pollution scheme in view of the impact this will have on his responsibility for pollution control. [9950/95]
Gerard C. Connolly
Ceist:66 Mr. Connolly asked the Minister for the Environment the plans, if any, he has to study the environmental impact of the Government's decision to shut down the control of farm pollution scheme in view of the impact this will have on his responsibility for pollution control. [9951/95]
Mary Coughlan
Ceist:67 Miss Coughlan asked the Minister for the Environment the plans, if any, he has to study the environmental impact of the Government's decision to shut down the control of farm pollution scheme in view of the impact this will have on his responsibility for pollution control. [9952/95]
Ray Burke
Ceist:71 Mr. R. Burke asked the Minister for the Environment the plans, if any, he has to study the environmental impact of the Government's decision to shut down the control of farm pollution scheme in view of the impact this will have on his responsibility for pollution control. [9948/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 36, 61, 66, 67 and 71 together.
The administration of the control of farm pollution scheme is a matter for the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry. Assessment of the environmental implications of any changes in the scheme is also a matter, in the first instance, for that Minister. My colleague has fully explained the reasons for the suspension of the scheme, the steps being taken to minimise the impact on REPS participants, and the arrangements made to cater for other cases having priority in environmental terms.
I am of course concerned to ensure that appropriate support continues to be available for investment in farm pollution control. My Department has accordingly participated in a consultative group which has made recommendations to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry on the future management of the scheme. An announcement on this matter has recently been made by the Minister.
Is the Minister aware that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry has blamed him and his former Government colleagues for the situation in which he now finds himself? Does the Minister believe, as I do, that there is a conflict between his Department and the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry? Will the Minister accept now that farmers have at long last accepted that they particularly must play a role in the control of pollution and have done so in substantial measure, the response of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry and of the collective Cabinet was to suspend the scheme? Does the Minister further accept that the fish kill on seven miles of river is the result of inadequate protection and that there is now a further danger of similar kills with consequent damage to tourism and the economy? What does the Department of the Environment propose to do to protect the environment?
I do not accept that our constituency colleague and my Government colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, would lay blame on me for the difficulties he faces.
He did.
It is not in the nature of the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Food to do such a thing.
When one is in a corner one does strange things.
I am surprised at Deputy Byrne's disparagement of farmers. It is not accurate to say they have "at long last" recognised their responsibilities. Farmers have been generally responsive to the aids that have been in place for some time.
So far under REPS, over 30,000 farmers have been granted aid for pollution control works at a cost of £200 million. The control of farmyard pollution is the second biggest State programme of investment in environmental infrastructure, exceeded in size only by the water and sewage programme. Already we have expended £200 million and many more millions of pounds will be expended as the programme advances. It is a signal of the goodwill and the environmental awareness of farmers that the volume of applications is now so great. I hope it will be possible for the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry to move expeditiously and ensure, with sideways movement of resources within his Department — to use his words — that there are no recurrences of yesterday's very sad affair when a burst embankment caused a pollution spill into an important fish river resulting in large fish kills. The summer season is beginning and I use the occasion to ask farmers in particular to be vigilant in regard to any possible source of pollution to ensure that our rivers remain pristine.
I happen to be a farmer, as the Minister knows, and I agree that we were slow to accept our role in the control of pollution. Now that we have come around to the proper way of thinking, the Government should respond to the demand for funds. However, Government's response has been to suspend the control of farmyard pollution scheme and this, perhaps, was the cause of the recent fish kill. I am concerned that there will be more such kills because of the decision to suspend the scheme. It seems that the Minister, Deputy Yates, has failed miserably at the Cabinet table to obtain moneys that are available to every other Minister at the drop of a hat. The Minister for Social Welfare obtained £210 million at one stroke of a pen.
The Deputy should not involve the Minister here in matters over which he has no control.
If the Minister sits at the Cabinet table every day, he is responsible.
If the Deputy has a question for the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry he ought to table it.
As Deputy Yates appears to be so weak, will the Minister for the Environment support him in acquiring substantial funds? What is the Minister's response to the action of Deputy Yates who advised farmers at a function in March this year, to which the Minister here was invited but could not attend, to apply for funds under the control of farm pollution scheme knowing that on 27 April, one month later, he would suspend the scheme?
I have every confidence in the abilities of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry to be a most effective Minister, to deal with all his responsibilities in a most effective way and to deliver on all the commitments he has made. As to my own responsibilities, there are no implications for my Department in that change. Local authorities continue to undertake their statutory pollution control functions as before. The existence or otherwise of CFP schemes will not influence their actions and they will use all the law in place to safeguard the environment to the best of their ability.
There are two serious implications and anomalies associated with the suspension of the control of farm pollution scheme that immediately come to mind. Is the Minister aware of the many farmers who qualified under REPS but are hamstrung by the suspension of the pollution control scheme? Will he consider the damage to the mountainside caused by overgrazing as a result of the need for farmers to capitalise on headage payments to remain in business? Could he argue at Cabinet for schemes such as the control of the farmyard pollution scheme which assist farmers to maintain a good quality environment?
Those questions should more appropriately be addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry.
Does the Minister agree with it?
I am not responsible for headage payments.
Responsibility for the environment should not be compartmentalised or confined to one Department. The Government is committed in its programme for Government to ensuring that responsibility for it is taken across the board. The suspension of the scheme illustrates that it is not so. Will the Minister use his position to argue the case for the reintroduction of this scheme and for its funding? It is too important to leave to one Minister. If the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry is unable to secure the necessary funds, surely a group of Ministers could come together and make a case to secure them.
The long standing policy of the Government dates back to a desision taken on 24 February 1978 which states that every Minister, including the Minister for the Environment, will be responsible in respect of his or her Department and any agency, public authority or semi-State body for which he is the appropriate Minister, for ensuring that the environmental effects and implications of policies, programmes and projects undertaken by his Department and such agencies shall be fully considered before decisions are taken and that such decisions shall take due account of the environmental considerations including national environmental policy.
Every Minister is responsible for taking account of the environmental impact of any policy decision taken within his or her Department. One of the key policy issues in the programme for Government is the national sustainable development strategy on which work is well under way. It will involve links with all Departments but particularly five — Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Enterpise and Employment, Transport, Energy and Communications, Tourism and Trade and Environment. Once the policy is supported and adopted by Government it will be driven by a Cabinet sub-committee of those Ministers. Environmental policy is a cornerstone of general Government policy and will be supported by my Cabinet colleagues.