Denis Naughten
Ceist:28 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the reason for the delay in issuing the single farm payment under the national reserve; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [12550/06]
Priority Questions.
Grant Payments.
Some 17,500 farmers submitted applications to the national reserve but when account is taken of the number of farmers who applied under two or more categories over 23,000 files have to be processed.
While much work has been done in processing the vast majority of the applications, none of the applications has yet been processed to finality with national reserve allocations attributed. Some 11% of the applications received are still under query with the farmers concerned as my Department has sought additional information in support of their applications. Processing of all applications is continuing and the intention is to make allocations to successful applicants within the next two weeks. I will be making a formal announcement in due course setting out the various criteria for allocating entitlements.
I thank the Minister for her reply. The only difficulty I have with the reply is that it is very similar to the replies we have been receiving for the past 12 months and all stating the allocation is imminent. When will the allocation be made? Is it not the case that as far back as 15 November 2005, 18,400 applications had been resolved and yet the Minister had given a commitment that the allocation of the national reserve would be made in January 2006? The single farm payment application forms for 2006 are currently being circulated and the entitlements for 2005 are still not available.
Will the Minister clarify for the House whether she has decided the amount of the regional average calculation and how it will be formulated?
I wish to again advise the House that in November or December of last year I indicated my priority was the single farm payment and this was the basis for delaying work on the national reserve. My view at that time, which was correct, was that the single farm payment should be dealt with as quickly as possible. With regard to the national reserve, the decision will be available within the next two weeks. If we find ourselves in the situation whereby people are under pressure with the application for the 2007 single farm payment and the timeframe is too short, I will certainly consider extending the timeframe by allowing another week or two. At that stage I will outline the criteria by which I will make my decision.
The Minister has still not made her decision regarding the definition of regions, nearly 12 months after the applications have been submitted. Will the Minister at least ensure that a helpline is made available so that applicants can resolve any outstanding queries, considering that 11% of applications are under query? No one can get through to Port Laoise. The situation is in a mess because of the mid-term transfer of the single farm payment and the impact of staff and payment facilities being transferred from Davitt House to Port Laoise. Even at this late stage I ask the Minister to provide information and the means of access to that information.
I am preparing for a possible onslaught following the letters being posted out. Unsuccessful applicants will naturally feel aggrieved but an appeals process will be available to them. I will ensure the resources will be in place so people can have a discussion about their application. I assume the successful applicants will be happy enough and will be able to proceed.
They will be phoning to thank the Minister.
I know the Deputy will also be doing that.
I appreciate that disappointed applicants will have concerns. Much work has been done on the basis of the mandatory criteria set down and in particular with regard to the special criteria set down by the Department. I do not agree the transfer from Davitt House to Port Laoise has undermined the work.
The Department has been meticulous in its interaction so people are assured that the relevant information is made available when an application is made. This is being done in the evenings and by letter and telephone call. I hope this matter will be finalised prior to Easter.
What is the definition of a region?
I will make that announcement within the fortnight.
Food Safety Standards.
Mary Upton
Ceist:29 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the areas in which there is not real equivalence between Irish standards of traceability, animal health and welfare and consumer protection and those which obtain in other EU and non-EU WTO member countries; and the form which her previously stated intention (details supplied) shall take. [12228/06]
Common standards in relation to traceability, animal health and welfare and consumer protection apply throughout the EU. These are set out in a range of food safety, consumer protection and veterinary legislation and are subject to inspection by member states own authorities as well as by the Food and Veterinary Office of the EU Commission.
My concern is that producers in some WTO member countries are not required to observe exactly the same requirements and as a result do not incur comparable costs as EU producers. I have notified the Commission of my concerns in this area, in particular in respect of imports of beef from third countries.
The Commission has indicated that the purpose of the legislation is not to impose on exporting third countries a system of guarantees that is equal to the EU system but to ensure the exporting third countries provide guarantees that are equivalent to the standards applied in the EU.
The Doha declaration which provides the political framework for the current WTO round of negotiations states that non-trade concerns, such as these, should be taken into account in the final agreement. As part of the ongoing WTO negotiations I am seeking practical recognition for the additional costs associated with these non-trade concerns.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply but it is the same as the reply I received before. I wish to make two important points. I refer to the significance of equivalence. Ireland imported 6,500 tonnes of Brazilian beef directly and almost 170,000 tonnes of Brazilian beef was imported into the European Union.
I refer to an FVO report on Brazil for the period August to September 2005. I ask the Minister of State whether he considers this to be equivalent in any way to the standards prevailing in Ireland. The report referred to the control of exports to the EU at establishment level. With regard to traceability, the report stated:
In the establishments visited, no particular training on traceability had been provided . . . From holding to slaughterhouse . . . a high number of discrepancies have been found between information in the [animal movement permit and the document of animal identification].
With regard to the process from live animals to carcases, it stated:
In two slaughterhouses visited the official veterinarian did not receive records of the results of checks by the slaughterhousestaff . . . In two slaughterhouses visited there was no link between the individual live animals and carcase numbers.
With regard to the period from slaughter to cutting, it stated:
In all establishments visited, the optional code 0000 was not used and the use of the batch number as instructed does not refer to maximum one day's cutting . . . In two establishments visited, instead of the cutting/packing date, the production date was put on the label . . . In another slaughterhouse visited the FVO team checked the traceability for one specific product . . . and found that the internal certificates for the one day checked covered more EU status product than produced on that day according to production records. The management admitted to having made a mistake by including non-EU status products.
With regard to controls at slaughter, it stated: "For some of the establishments visited no formal documentation could be demonstrated in respect of approval for the different activities." With regard to supervision, it stated:
One cutting plant visited had been suspended for export since June 2002. Since then no official supervision . . . at State level had been carried out and the establishment had changed ownership three times, but it remained on the approved list for export of fresh meat to the EU.
With regard to official establishment control, it stated: "A number of deficiencies were identified in record keeping, which could not be explained, although all records were signed by the official services."
In addition, there were problems with ante mortem inspection, post mortem inspection and foot and mouth disease control in the two states visited. In one cold store visited, there was no clear separation of EU-eligible and non-EU eligible product. Maintenance problems were identified at establishments and deficiencies were identified regarding operational hygiene and flow of products. With regard to certification, a shortcoming noted was the lack of national certificates certifying fresh meat or meat products from non-EU approved establishments as complying with EU requirements. If this is meant to be equivalence in terms of EU requirements, it is a joke.
The European Union has developed its own systems of traceability and animal welfare. Different systems operate in jurisdictions outside the control of the EU. We demand guarantees that the food products imported into the EU meet the relevant health and safety requirements.
The Minister, Deputy Coughlan, is the only Minister at the Council of Ministers to have raised the issue of the extra requirements for EU producers, to which we fully and wholeheartedly subscribe. In recent weeks, the Minister and I met Commissioner Mandelson on the World Trade Organisation negotiations and raised, in particular, the subject matter of Deputy Upton's question. The Minister, the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, and I met the French Agriculture Minister in Ireland some weeks ago. I met the Hungarian Secretary of State for Agriculture and the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, also met the Czech Minister for Agriculture in recent weeks.
Among the concerns we highlighted were the WTO negotiations, the issue of standards and the need for continued assessment, diligence and attention to the quality of product entering the European Union. We raised in particular the extra requirements and costs borne by producers due to the systems in place in the EU. At the WTO negotiations the Minister raised the need before the WTO talks conclude to compensate producers in regard to the tariff regime that will apply to agriculture products entering the EU.
In reply to a similar question from Deputy Upton in February last, I stated that as a result of the audit carried out by the Food and Veterinary Office of the EU, a number of recommendations were made by the European Commission to the standing committee on the food chain and animal health. Some of those recommendations were acted upon at that time. The EU was in further negotiations with the Brazilian authorities at that time in regard to certain concerns. In particular, only deboned and mature meat can come from specific areas of Brazil to the EU.
The concerns outlined are ones the Minister has highlighted alone at the Council of 25 Agriculture Ministers. At every opportunity that arises at EU level, in the Council of Ministers or at bilateral meetings with other Ministers for Agriculture throughout the Union, we raise these issues diligently and forcefully. It is an issue we will ensure is kept on the agenda.
We will move to Question No. 30.
I will make a final point. I am glad this issue has been raised at EU level. However, the Minister of State will agree it is putting Irish producers at a significant disadvantage. The issue with regard to inspection is that it was meant to be a review of promises made the previous year by Brazil. However, despite some improvements, there is a long list of unacceptable practices in Brazil from the perspective of animal health, hygiene and the consumer as well as trading interests.
I assure Deputy Upton, the House and the wider community that the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, has sought at the WTO negotiations a continuation of the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement whereby, if issues arise and the EU feels products are a danger to the health of consumers, it can implement measures and ban them. Ireland is seeking recognition for the additional costs borne by our producers by seeking a discount of the EU tariff reduction commitment. These issues are being pursued by this country in a trenchant and forceful manner. That is the way it will remain.
I call Question No. 30.
This beef is an unacceptable product. There is a tariff issue and a financial issue in this regard but there is also a health and safety issue if such practices continue. A factory would more than likely be closed down in this country if similar practices prevailed.
They would be in jail.
We must proceed.
The incidents to which I referred are a small part of the problems that prevail in those countries. There is a significant risk to the consumer arising from those practices as well as to trade.
The Deputy is aware that the Minister last October wrote a formal letter on the issue to the Commissioner for Health and Consumers' Protection, Commissioner Kyprianou, apart from raising it at the Council of Ministers. The Commission response was that it was satisfied with the level of monitoring and controls in place in respect of imports from third countries.
Animal Carcase Disposal.
Martin Ferris
Ceist:30 Mr. Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if there have been breaches of regulations regarding the sale or use of specified risk materials from animals; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [12361/06]
The safe disposal of specified risk material, SRM, and other offal plays an important part in the protection of human and animal health and is an integral part of the EU legally enforced BSE controls in the meat sector. Conscious of the need to protect consumer health from vCJD, the human form of BSE, Ireland has consistently supported control measures to exclude from the food chain products of animal origin which may pose a risk to human health.
Under EU and national legislation it is a requirement that SRM, consisting of certain offal, including the skull, spinal cord, eyes and other specified material of cattle and sheep over 12 months of age, be separately collected, transported, processed and disposed of outside of the feed chain. In practice this material is separated from other animal offal at slaughter plants and butchers' premises, dyed and sent to dedicated rendering plants which are under the veterinary supervision of my Department for rendering into meat and bonemeal and tallow. The meat and bonemeal derived from the SRM is disposed of by incineration in other member states. The tallow is generally burned as an alternative fuel at the rendering plants. More recently, some meat processing plants have begun to use tallow as a fuel in thermal boilers to produce heated water and steam. To do so, the operator must be approved by the Department.
The controls at high capacity meat establishments are overseen by the Department's veterinary inspectorate and those at low capacity meat establishments by the local authority veterinary services. The Department and the local authorities operate under service contracts with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, which also has a statutory role in auditing the procedures and the food safety controls in place throughout the meat industry. The EU Food and Veterinary Office also audits and reports on the controls in place at meat plants, including those relating to the removal and disposal of SRM. The various audits on the SRM controls operated by my Department have indicated that they are satisfactory.
In 2005 there were nine breaches of the SRM controls recorded. All the product in respect of eight of these breaches was destroyed to ensure it did not enter the food chain. In respect of the other breach, bovine carcase product containing SRM was delivered to a plant not authorised to process such product. This product was subsequently transported under official control to an authorised plant where controlled SRM removal took place.
Our Department will continue to monitor the implementation of the BSE and SRM controls to ensure compliance with all EU and national legislation. In conjunction with the EPA and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, my Department continues to consider all possible options for the safe disposal of such material.
Is the Minister of State aware that claims have been made by at least one individual involved in the meat industry that specific risk materials, as defined in the relevant EU scientific options, are being sold for use in the manufacture of cosmetics and that this has taken place despite the appointment of official inspectors to prevent such a transfer of those materials? Has the Minister of State been made aware of any such practices and have the Department inspectors ever voiced concerns that such practices might take place? Will she indicate whether she is satisfied that the current level of inspections and monitoring systems are sufficient? Will she further indicate the penalties for any company or individual found to be involved in such practices?
On a lighter note, given that a great deal of money is spent annually on cosmetics for the Taoiseach, whether it be for foundation, conditioner, moisturiser, liquid blusher, lipstick which I do not assume would apply to him — or eye shadow, and given that considerable specific risk materials could find their way into the cosmetic chain, what measures can we take to at least protect our Taoiseach?
That answers a good deal.
We are not aware of the incident to which the Deputy referred. If he has such information, we would be pleased if he would notify us immediately of same. Our advice and knowledge is that there is sale element involved in this process because it is a cost to the industry. The industry has to pay for the proper disposal of the materials, chiefly through incineration in Germany and other member states. It is a cost to the industry. There is no profit from the disposal of the materials and there is no sale element of which we are aware. If the Deputy has any other evidence, he might notify us of it.
Our information is that there were the nine incidents of which I advised him. We believe the monitoring system is effective due to the fact that nine incidents were detected in this manner. We are clear about what specifically occurred in each case. In two of nine incidents the items were simply put in the wrong bin and that was immediately identified by the inspector. In some cases the plant was closed temporarily or the slaughtering ceased while the whole line was checked to make sure that everything was perfected. We are all the time perfecting a dedicated and detailed system and it is our information that the process is crystal clear. If the Deputy wishes he may bring to our attention the example he identified of which we are not aware.
Milk Quota.
Seymour Crawford
Ceist:31 Mr. Crawford asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the discussions she has had with farming organisations and her own advisory body on milk quotas regarding her recent announcement that milk quota will be available from 2007 at market value through different structures including marts; when full details of this new development will be available in order that co-ops and farmers can plan for the future; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [12363/06]
I recently announced my intention to move to a more open market system for transferring milk quotas, which will come into effect on 1 April 2007. I made this decision because the current restructuring model will not meet the future needs of the industry and a more effective response is required to meet future competitive pressures.
This is crucial given the growing competition faced by the sector both internally in the EU and in our international markets. These competitive pressures will increase as we move towards the conclusion of a new WTO agreement. I want to ensure that the Irish dairy sector is well prepared for these challenges while having the capacity to secure its share of global growth in demand for dairy products.
In making my announcement I made it clear that the new system would continue to operate at co-op level and that it could be organised through an exchange system, through direct sales between individuals, between brokers-agents or through the marts. Quota could be sold with or without land and leased with land, with a variety of partnership options being allowed. I specifically said that the detailed arrangements would be prepared in association with the stakeholders and my Department has already commenced that consultation process.
When the initial stage of the consultation process is completed in the next few weeks, I will consider how best to proceed with a view to having the detailed arrangements in place at the earliest possible date. In announcing my intention to reform the existing system a full year in advance of the effective date of implementation, I was anxious to provide adequate time to consider all the relevant issues and to alert farmers that new arrangements were under consideration.
I thank the Minister for her interesting reply. It is strange that she should issue the 2006 restructuring scheme on a Friday morning and on that afternoon write this statement, on the release of which an embargo was placed until Sunday, literally killing off the restructuring scheme for 2006. Was it because she was feeling anxious going to meet her colleagues on a Sunday afternoon regarding her disastrous position on the sugar beet and nitrates issues that she wanted to cause some means of distraction? If it was, she achieved that as evidenced by the fact that the nitrates issue is no longer on the front page of the Irish Farmers’ Journal, but rather this issue is. Does she accept that if there is a major differential in the value of milk from one area to another, co-op boundaries will certainly not retain it?
Does the Minister have an answer for a young farmer — from whom I am sure the Minister of State, Mr. Brendan Smith, has also had contact, and this farmer is only one of many — as to the position in which he will find himself in County Cavan or in the lakeland dairy sector, given that he understood he was working to a two-year plan that she announced last year, but now finds that there will be no milk quota available for him to purchase this year and that he will have to lease it instead? Does the Minister believe what she has done so quickly after her announcement on the restructuring scheme will allow any restructuring to happen this year?
I totally refute the Deputy's little petty political snipe. It would be much more overcoming and overbearing if I had not done something about the dairy industry. That industry has decreased its capacity during the past nine years by 11,000 farmers. If we are to have a sustainable dairy sector, we need to do something about it. Two years ago I made an announcement in consultation with all the stakeholders to examine restructuring. I indicated at that time that I would re-evaluate the outcome, but the outcome was disappointing. It is on this basis that I have reviewed the policy, and the policy must be the preparedness of this industry to deal with the outcome of the WTO talks, increased competition — we are only half way through the Luxembourg Agreement — and the absolute necessity to sustain dairy farming here. It is on that basis that I introduced a more open market system. I am allowing a year for time to consult and to prepare farmers. On the basis of the outcome last year of 3.4%, my view is that we will not see anything near that this year on the basis of the current restructuring scheme.
The Minister has scuttled it.
I have not. I am talking about the reality and dealing with it needs action and that will be provided in consultation with the stakeholders.
We are seriously concerned about outcomes for small farmers and for young farmers. That is the reason this open market system is operated within the co-ops and that ring fencing is not being removed. It would be easy to go into an open market and allow a free-for-all, but that is not in the best interests of the sector. If we are to be prepared for the competitive nature of the dairy industry and to sustain it, most particularly when the market supports are being removed, we must have a pro-active initiative within the sector to allow for scale, to allow those who wish to retire the opportunity to do so with a proper income and, in particular, to protect the most efficient who often are the smaller to middle-sized operators.
I will consult. Consultations have taken place with the stakeholders. The Minister of State, Deputy Brendan Smith, and I will meet the co-operatives as well as the farming organisations. We will take into consideration their concerns. We will not allow a free-for-all or a situation where just because a person has money, he or she can have access to quota. All of that must be done within a proper framework. When we speak of regulation and over-regulation, it is about time we allow farmers to predetermine, not to be told how they should do their business, and allow them that freedom to farm. I will certainly take into consideration many of the concerns which need to be addressed in the context of this new policy framework.
While I appreciate the Minister's answer, how does she suggest one will be able to retain quota in areas if the value of that quota is significantly higher in the low-cost areas of this country? History shows that one of the largest quotas in the country transferred from Donegal to Cork in the past under a technicality. Does she accept that in some cases co-operatives straddle this country which means that if the chequebook farmer has the right to buy, quota can move within that co-operative structure from one end of the country to the other?
The person to whom I refer in County Cavan is a young small farmer who wants to progress. He has detailed his situation and what it will cost him. Can the Minister guarantee she will be able to ensure that if a farmer wants to sell his quota in Monaghan or Donegal, it will be retained in the area concerned and that farmers will be able to buy it at a realistic price?
I possess a quota and therefore I have a personal interest. I want to declare that clearly. If I want to sell my quota I will try to give it to the highest bidder, no matter who that person is. How can the Minister guarantee that it will remain in the area? At EU level is the Minister seeking an increase in the quota for this area? It might be a more positive way of dealing with the situation.
As the Deputy is aware, in 2008 we will be reviewing the quota scene. Considering what has happened in the European Community recently, our preparation must happen now to sustain our activity in the dairy sector. Coming from Donegal, I agree that the issue of ring-fencing is a policy initiative that is close to our hearts and I will continue to ensure that will remain so.
Like Deputy Crawford, I have concerns that there would be situations whereby people would over extend themselves by perhaps getting a loan to purchase quota. Equated with that is a considerable criticism of the lack of access to quota which we in this House all hear day in, day out. That is a significant concern for people. It is a significant disincentive for them to remain on the land and I must do something about that. However, I agree there will be regulations and assurances given to allow a situation whereby there is fairness and a balance within the quota system.
In listening to as many people as I do, my view is that unless we move now we will not have a dairy industry. It is incumbent on all of us in this House to ensure we have a sustainable dairy sector. It is a fabulous industry. Ours is the most efficient in the European Community. We are under a great deal of pressure from market support reductions from WTO, considerable issues of the decreasing price of milk, consumer spend and the current world price of milk. That is why it is important we have a sustainable, commercial activity in the dairy sector. It is not just farmers who will be waiting for the outcome of this, but also so many other vital ancillary industries.
I very much respect Deputy Crawford's views. I understand from where he is coming. I have read the local newspapers. I have seen some slight agitation about this issue. The Minister of State, Deputy Brendan Smith, will meet the co-operative on my behalf. I will meet them in due course. We will come up with proposals on the basis of consultation with the stakeholders which is almost complete.
EU Directives.
Jerry Cowley
Ceist:32 Dr. Cowley asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the reason sheep farmers in the Ballycroy, Tiernaur, Bangor and Keenagh areas of County Mayo are being asked to remove stock for six months of the year and to de-stock up to 70% when this will mean the total extinction of their farming livelihood; if her attention has been drawn to the fact that the overwhelming majority of those farmers are already involved in REP schemes and have already heavily destocked in recent times; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [12365/06]
This situation relates to the implementation of the wild birds directive and as such it is a matter in the first instance for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. He has designated the Owenduff/Nephin Beg complex, which includes the area in question, under both the wild birds and habitats directives.
The European Commission secured a judgment against Ireland in the European Court of Justice in June 2002. The case, which was focused by the Commission on the Owenduff-Nephin Beg area of County Mayo, was taken under the wild birds directive and was about the extent to which the habitat of the red grouse, an annexed species, was compromised by the overgrazing of sheep on commonage. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government was the lead Department in responding to the court proceedings.
Following the judgment against Ireland a reassessment of the commonage took place. This showed that the actions that had been taken to deal with the overgrazing, which involved partial destocking in 2002 under the commonage framework plans, had not been enough to allow the habitat to regenerate. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is, therefore, required to take further steps if Ireland is to avoid a large fine.
Implementation of the destocking provisions of the commonage framework plans was capped at 60% when it was first put into effect. It is now clear, however, that destocking recommendations must be implemented in full. This will affect approximately 50% of the area in question, where the destocking requirement in the framework plans is greater than 60%. I understand the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, following consultation with farming representatives, has also advised that for this area to regenerate it will be necessary to have an annual period of total destocking.
The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has, I understand, notified the Commission in February of Ireland's intention to implement the full recommended destocking in the commonage framework plans. They have also informed the Commission that they will require farmers to take all sheep off the commonage for a five-month period each year. This will be made up of the months of November and December and the period from mid-February to mid-May.
Many farmers in this area are in REPS. It is a condition of that scheme that they must comply with the framework plans. However, the complete removal of sheep for a five-month period is additional to REPS requirements, and the farmers are entitled to be compensated for it separately by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Farmers who are not in REPS may seek compensation, both for the destocking and for the five-month no-grazing period from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, under the national scheme operated by the National Parks and Wildlife Service.
REPS is a voluntary scheme and will continue to make a positive contribution to specific environmental objectives. It will continue to complement the actions the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government is taking to deal with this serious situation. It is in the interests of all farmers to ensure that only environmentally sustainable farming practices are carried out on the site. Otherwise there is a real risk that payments which are directly linked to environmental benefits will be brought into question.
I thank the Minister for her detailed reply. There are 300 sheep farmers who farm commonage in this area of Mayo. The big problem is there has been a significant lack of information from the State about what is happening. People just came down and made assessments and the farmers had no input at all. The result is these severe measures which will sound the death knell for these farmers. If one takes the sheep off the mountain for so long, will the sheep go up the mountain again? There is at least one farmer who has no lowland whatsoever. What is he to do? Where will he find a place for his sheep? Who will pay for the rent of the land to accommodate them etc., for five or six months?
This is the point on which I seek the Minister's view. Farmers, as she stated, are already involved in good farming practice. Some 60% are in REPS and they have done their best according to the commonage framework plan, which is in place since 2002. There has been nothing for the other 40%. There was supposed to be a national plan which would guide farmers on what to do. The farmers have had no administration whatsoever to allow that 40% farm in any environmental way. This has been a major deficit. What is the Minister's view? Farmers are really paying the price and there has been a significant lack of information about this entire matter.
There are 135 sheep farmers in the area, 85 of whom participate in REPS and are entitled to measure A, that is, €242 per hectare, which we renegotiated and obtained. With regard to the five-month destocking period, compensation will be made available by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government through the national parks and wildlife service to address issues of feed and land. Recently, a heated public meeting took place in County Mayo on this matter. My Department's perspective is based on a number of specific issues arising from the commonage framework plan. For example, in estimating the single farm payment, we went back to 1997 and 1998 in recognition of the impact of the framework plan. We have introduced a specific scheme for those who are destocked under the national reserve and I hope that people have applied for that.
Deputy Cowley's main concern seems to be for the farmers who do not participate in REPS. Such farmers can either decide to enter the scheme or look for compensation through the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. That is the only mechanism by which we can address this matter because, at the end of the day, the European Court of Justice has made a judgment against us and we are exposed to incurring daily fines. Over and above that, however, I am concerned that we may have difficulties in proceeding with REPS 4. Compensation for those outside REPS can be made available either by joining the scheme, in which case they will be afforded measure A, or by seeking compensation through the national parks and wildlife service.
As the Deputy is aware, we have introduced a new farm waste management scheme under which grant aid is provided for the housing of sheep. Perhaps that can help farmers who must move their sheep for the five-month period in question.
The 60% of farmers who participate in REPS have done their best and have farmed in an environmentally friendly way, so no fault can attach to them. The remaining 40% have no plan whatsoever. As the Minister noted, a heated meeting took place about three weeks ago which was attended by officials from the Departments of Agriculture and Food and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. However, the national plan was only put in place hours before the meeting whereas it should have been in place in 2002 when the commonage framework plan was introduced. The farmers in question have been mistreated and have suffered from a lack of information. The Commission was informed in February that there would be a five-month destocking period, although I was informed on 31 January that negotiations would be held. It seems the matter is a fait accompli.
The Commission investigated the matter last June and found that, despite the measures previously introduced, the 60% under the commonage framework plan did not work. On that basis, they went beyond the plan. It may be appropriate for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the national parks and wildlife service to hold further discussions with the farmers on resolving the issue of compensation and their concerns. Deputy Carty and I have met a number of these farmers to explain the matter and the aforementioned meeting was held to brief people on the outcome.
How could it have worked, given that no plan was put in place for the other 40%? If the Department had acted properly eight years ago, the mountain would be different now.
Deputy Carty will sort it out.