Denis Naughten
Ceist:1 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the steps she is taking to address the burden of inspections on farmers under the nitrates directive; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40724/06]
Priority Questions.
EU Directives.
My Department, in the context of delivering the single payment scheme, is required under EU law to carry out on-the-spot inspections on a number of farms covering such issues as eligibility under the scheme, compliance with EU legislation in the areas of the environment, food safety, animal health and welfare and plant health, and ensuring the farm is maintained in good agricultural and environmental condition. A minimum of 5% of single payment scheme applicants are required to be inspected under the eligibility rule. Up to two thirds of these inspections are carried out without a farm visit and using the technique of remote sensing.
The rate of on-farm inspection required for cross-compliance is 1% of those farmers to whom the statutory management requirements, including the nitrates directive, or GAEC apply. However, at least 5% of producers must be inspected under the bovine animal identification and registration requirements as this level is prescribed under the relevant regulations.
On-farm inspection is a requirement of the many schemes operated by my Department, including REPS, the early retirement scheme, the farm waste management scheme and other measures included in the €6.8 billion funding package recently agreed for the 2007-13 period. In carrying out the inspection function, my officials try to be reasonable while respecting the regulatory requirements of the schemes involved.
In 2006, 8,200 farmers had their holdings selected for on-the-spot inspection out of 130,000 who had applied under the single payment scheme. Over 100,000 of these are also applicants for the disadvantaged areas scheme. The value of both schemes to Irish farmers is €1.55 billion in 2006.
My Department's policy towards on-farm inspection for the single payment scheme has been to give advance notice of up to 48 hours in all cases. This policy of systematic pre-announcement of inspections was questioned by the Commission in July 2006 and its unacceptability was conveyed to my Department in a formal communication in August. As a result, my Department was obliged to agree to a proportion of single payment scheme inspections being carried out in 2006 without prior notification. Some 650 farms out of 130,000 involved in the single payment scheme were subsequently selected for unannounced inspection. The balance of inspection cases, representing 92% of the 8,200 farms selected for single payment scheme-disadvantaged areas scheme inspection in 2006, were all pre-notified to the farmer.
The EU regulations governing the single payment scheme would allow my Department to give pre-notification of inspection in the case of certain elements of cross-compliance, for example, nitrates. However, my Department is committed in the charter of rights for farmers to carrying out all single payment scheme and disadvantaged area scheme checks during a single farm visit in most cases. This then obliges my Department to respect the advance notice requirements applicable to the most stringent element of the inspection regime, namely, a maximum of 48 hours' notice but with no advance notice in a proportion of cases.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
My Department is also committed in the charter of rights to pursuing with the European Commission a strategy to deliver advance notification of 14 days for inspections under the single payment scheme. The matter has been raised with the Commission on a number of occasions since 2004, particularly in the context of the Irish situation where we are applying a fully decoupled and essentially area-dependent single payment scheme. I have personally made the case again recently to Commissioner Fischer Boel and this issue will be a key point for Ireland in the CAP simplification initiative of the Commission which is now under way. I had a meeting last week with my German counterpart, Horst Seehofer, who takes over the chair of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in January, where I gave my wholehearted support to his proposal to make simplification of the CAP a core issue during the German Presidency.
Pre-notification of single payment scheme-disadvantaged areas scheme inspections fits in with the practicalities of Irish agriculture where, increasingly, farmers are also engaged in off-farm employment. In a decoupled single payment scheme system, the provision of advance notification of inspection to the farmer should not negatively impact on the effectiveness of the control. However, as the EU regulations stand, my Department is obliged to carry out a small proportion of inspections without prior notification and this is what is being done in 2006.
It is important to point out, however, that the total level of cross-compliance penalties in 2005 — the first year of application of the single payment scheme — amounted to about €330,000 out of the total single payment financial envelope of more than €1.2 billion available to Ireland.
Is it not the case that in 2002 the then Minister for Agriculture and Food stated that the nitrates directive, first, would be based purely on science, which we know is not the case and, second, would allow adequate time for phased compliance by farmers? Will the Minister explain how adequate time is being provided to farmers when, within a couple of weeks the information booklet was published and circulated to farmers, the explanatory meetings were arranged and are currently taking place and a rigorous inspection regime is being applied by the Department of Agriculture and Food? Does the Minister believe that is the provision of adequate time for farmers?
How does the Minister expect farmers to understand what is happening when at one of these explanatory meetings the Department of Agriculture and Food and Teagasc blatantly disagreed in regard to the definition of soiled water? How are farmers supposed to comply when the experts dealing with the matter do not know what is happening? Is it not the case that farming is becoming a by-product of bureaucracy rather than the other way round?
As I stated in my reply, an agreement was made with the farming organisations under the charter that we would have one inspection. The notification of inspections under certain parts of the single payment scheme can be given, including with regard to nitrates. However, it was agreed that both sectors would be put together so we would not have two or three inspections.
My view, which I have stated publicly and in my meeting with the incoming president of the Council, is that we need simplification and to deal with the issue of on-farm inspections. He and I agreed a number of issues can be dealt with in a more practical way. I will pursue those issues vigorously. I and my team believe there should be pre-notification of inspections — that is how I stand with regard to the policy. As I indicated to the Deputy, the number of inspections has decreased. However, the regulation given to us in August 2006 states there must be no pre-notification, which has caused difficulties.
I do not agree with the Deputy on the issue of nitrates. All of us have worked strongly in dealing with the nitrates directive. We have worked on a scientific basis and many improvements have been made to the scheme. I sincerely thank Deputy Naughten for the positive way in which he has embraced the fact that we have a derogation, which is important. We have also reflected a number of the concerns about the farm waste management scheme.
I wish to clarify one point, namely, the definition of soiled water and slurry, because it is important we have clarity in this regard. There is no difference between the Department, which is the regulatory body, and Teagasc on this issue. My briefing note states with regard to the holding yards, in particular the collecting yards for milk: "In the case of holding yards not slatted, if the slurry is scraped into the slurry tank and the yard is then washed into the soiled water tank and the contents meet the soiled water standards (BOD/DM) it will be treated as soiled water". That is the definition, on which there is absolute clarity.
The reality is that farmers are confused and have not been given adequate time to comprehend these regulations. Inspections are taking place but at the same time farmers are supposed to be compliant. In many parts of the country, the explanatory meetings are only now taking place. Why are the Department's inspectors not prepared to inform farmers of the criteria being used for the penalties, which should be the case? Why has there been a situation in law from 1 January 2006 that farmers must have clean water management systems in place rather than tying that in to the farm waste management scheme, which would have made more sense?
The Department and Teagasc were asked at one of the information meetings whether they would provide a free telephone line for farmers to provide information on how to comply with the nitrates directive. In response, farmers were told the service would be put in place in January. There is not much point putting it in place in January when the inspections are taking place now and given that the Department and the Minister have denied farmers the basic information they need to comply with the nitrates directive as it stands.
The reality on the ground is that farmers are being terrorised. They do not know what is happening and they will be penalised with rules and regulations they do not understand and about which they have not been given adequate information.
I refute that completely and categorically.
It is the factual position.
It is those like the Deputy who are winding up farmers. We have seen a reduction in the number of inspections.
There were eight inspections on one farm.
I have an agreement on the number of inspections that will take place. The cross-compliance penalties imposed last year came to €330,000, from a total of €1.2 billion. Half of the people who received penalties in respect of small difficulties — I am referring to approximately 1,000 farmers — got off on the basis of the tolerances in my scheme. The tolerances were agreed with the farmers.
Tolerances are not much good to farmers when they do not know what is going on.
I appreciate that the Deputy is not farming. Every farmer got an explanatory booklet providing background information on this issue. Every farmer has that booklet.
Since last week.
Every farmer will have a copy of the report on the examination that takes place on his or her farm. We had an opportunity within the regulation to provide a farm advisory service. That was not acceptable to the farming organisations. Teagasc and the private planners will provide that service. The Department of Agriculture and Food, and Teagasc have organised events at which such advice has been given. People are anxious to know what is going on. The information is being provided. If people want to disrupt that process, it will be on their heads. It is unfair that farmers who are being facilitated with this information are not being given an opportunity to appreciate it. It is wrong, without a shadow of a doubt, to suggest that my inspectorate is undermining or vilifying farmers. That is factually incorrect. An inordinate amount of bureaucracy and paperwork is being done by my inspectorate, rather than by farmers.
The farmers are answerable for it.
All of it is verifiable. Deputy Crawford knows that if people want copies of the reports on the inspections that have taken place, such copies are being made available to them. There has been nothing but openness and working together on this issue to ensure that the system is fair. As I have said on many occasions, I intend use the health check on the Common Agricultural Policy to examine ways of providing for less bureaucracy and dealing with issues relating to on-farm inspections. I intend to deliver that to the best of my ability.
They should have been given the information before the inspections took place, not after they took place.
Information was made available.
They were given two hours' warning.
There is no point in the Deputies sitting opposite shouting at me. It does not stand up. It is not permissible under the regulation as it stands. Neither the Deputies nor I, as Members of this House, can allow the money of Irish and European taxpayers to be spent without any accountability.
Under the regulation, they have the right to get information in advance.
I am sure Deputy Naughten agrees with that, as a Member of the House.
National Task Force on Obesity.
Mary Upton
Ceist:2 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the discussions she has had with the National Task Force on Obesity since it was established; the input her Department has made to the ongoing work on the task force; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40701/06]
The Department of Agriculture and Food made a comprehensive submission to the National Task Force on Obesity setting out in detail its mission, role and responsibilities, which are "to lead the sustainable development of a competitive, consumer focused agri-food sector and to contribute to a vibrant rural economy and society". The Department participated in a consultation day that was organised by the task force and responded to specific requests from the task force. In the event, the task force's report directed two of its 93 recommendations to the Department. The first such recommendation was that the Department of Agriculture and Food together with the Department of Health and Children should promote the implementation of evidence-based healthy eating intervention. The second recommendation was that the Department of Agriculture and Food should review policies in partnership with other Departments to promote access to healthy food and that such policies should encompass positive discrimination in the provision of grants and funding to local industry in favour of healthy products.
The Department and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland funded a scientific study on children's diet, which was the first study to benchmark the dietary intakes of a nationally representative sample of Irish children. The work was carried out by researchers from Trinity College and University College Cork in 2003 and 2004. They surveyed 600 children between the ages of five and 12 from primary schools throughout Ireland. The researchers collected information on each child relating to their diets, levels of physical activity and body measurements, as well as to the lifestyles of the children and their parents. The study is the first comprehensive scientific evaluation of the dietary intake of children in Ireland. It provides direction for the dietary strategies that need to be established to prevent obesity. The scientific study identified that the levels of consumption of milk, fresh meat and fruit and vegetables among the young are inadequate. The Minister, Deputy Coughlan, launched a new school milk scheme last August in response to the study and the recommendation of the obesity task force. The revamped scheme offers a broader range of milk products, including flavoured milk, low-fat and fortified options. The packaging of the products has also been improved. The new scheme will encourage increased milk consumption among schoolchildren.
The Department of Agriculture and Food is working with the European Commission and Wholesale Produce Ireland to fund a pilot health food initiative, known as the "food dude" programme, to encourage the consumption of fruit and vegetables by children in primary schools. The programme, which is managed by Bord Bia, is in its second year of operation. When it has been completed, it will have been introduced to 120 primary schools. The programme, which was developed by the University of Wales, Bangor, is based on positive role models, repeated tasting and rewards. Studies show it can deliver long-lasting results across the primary age range, regardless of gender, school size, geographic and socio-economic factors. The programme, which lasts three years, is designed to help children to enjoy a healthy diet and to create a healthy eating culture within schools. The results of the first year of the programme have been very encouraging. The activity has been very well received by pupils, parent and teachers.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The Irish "food dude" project, which is highly regarded, won the World Health Organisation's counteracting obesity award for 2006 at last week's WHO Istanbul European ministerial conference on counteracting obesity. The initiative was praised by Commissioner Kyprianou as "an innovative approach to promoting a healthy and balanced diet among children". The three-year programme was singled out for its success in promoting "fruit and vegetable consumption in a way that changes children's behaviour for the better on a permanent basis while ensuring the availability of the promoted product". I have been impressed with the positive response to the programme and decided that it would be beneficial to run it on a larger scale. I have secured some €4 million in the Estimates for the programme to be run with national funding in more primary schools next year. Subject to ongoing evaluation, I intend to extend the programme to more schools in later years.
My Department's mission is "to lead the sustainable development of a competitive, consumer focused agri-food sector and to contribute to a vibrant rural economy and society". The agri-vision plan of action reinforces this mission and sets out key deliverables focusing on three axes for success in the food industry — competitiveness, innovation and consumer-focused marketing. In the current era of decoupling production from support, the agri-food sector must look to the market potential of products and consumer demands, including the emerging health agenda. Tackling obesity is a multidimensional issue that involves the whole spectrum of policy makers and health providers, together with public opinion on addressing the need for lifestyle balance.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I thought for a moment that he was going to mention all 93 proposals for dealing with obesity. I would like to mention same relevant facts relating to obesity. Some 18% of adults are obese and 39% of adults are overweight. In health terms, the problems of overweight and obesity contribute to many illnesses, including cardiovascular disease and psychological disorders. I welcome what the Minister of State has said. One should not write off the economic costs against the health costs, which are much more significant. The economic cost of the problems I have mentioned is approximately €400 million per annum. I would like the Minister of State to tell the House what has happened to the proposal to provide for positive discrimination in favour of healthy products when grants and funding are being provided to local industry. While I welcome the "food dude" initiative and the proposal to supply additional milk to school children, etc., much more can be done in such respects. What has happened to the proposal to provide for positive discrimination? How many companies are involved in the proposal? What is the outcome of the proposal in terms of production levels?
The Irish "food dude" programme won an international award last week. It got great recognition from the World Health Organisation.
Congratulations.
The EU Agriculture and Rural Development Commissioner has said the programme can be a model for the rest of Europe, particularly during the process of organising the fruit and vegetable sector over the coming months. That process is due to conclude in January. We hope the operation of the programme can be expanded.
We have prioritised horticulture in recent years when giving grants to fruit and vegetable developments. There has been substantial investment in on-farm and processing facilities. Deputy Upton is aware that considerable resources are being devoted to the food institutional research programme. Research and innovation are taking place in the public sector and in private companies. Work is being done not only in our universities and institutes of technology, but in Teagasc as the lead authority. The mission statement of the Agri-Vision 2015 report places a particular emphasis on the future competitiveness of our food industry, which needs to be consumer-focused. Our food industry will develop by concentrating on the provision of nutritious, safe and high-quality food for our citizens. Considerable resources have been disbursed and are being expended. Further resources have been committed for the next few years in the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture and Food. The food sector will be a major beneficiary of the Government's strategy for innovation in science. There is support for innovation and research in all areas. We have emphasised the need for innovation in the development of alternative forms of healthy and nutritious food. We intend to continue to accelerate that programme. The emphasis we have placed on fruit and vegetables in recent years will pay dividends.
I welcome the initiatives that have led to an increase in horticultural output. This country needs to do much more to develop horticulture as an aspect of the food industry. Much more could be done to replace our imported products by way of new initiatives, especially on fruit and vegetables. I accept that we cannot grow bananas here, but there are many other fruits and vegetables that could be promoted and developed.
It is important to note that there is still a problem in this country with food poverty. While there are social and financial aspects to it, there is also an issue about the availability of quality, nutritious foods to those people most at risk. The Department of Agriculture and Food should be looking at new initiatives, such as farmers' markets, to make nutritious foods more available to disadvantaged communities.
Deputy Upton has raised these issues previously. In the next national development plan, there will be a greater focus on fruit and vegetables and we will take new initiatives in that respect. There is an emerging health agenda that is being addressed by the food industry. Food poverty and the fact that people in disadvantaged homes do not get access to nutritious foods are part of a multidimensional question. There has recently been a growth in the number of farmers' markets and there are now 101 such markets. Bord Bia has been actively promoting the idea of establishing farmers' markets. Over the past few months, there have been four regional food fora in the north east, the midlands, the south east and the north west. In each forum, we invited people involved in the food industry to meet officials from Bord Bia and the other statutory agencies. We have advocated the growth of farmers' markets and quick access to the local consumer. We have given the area our attention, but it does not provide us with the return we would like as quickly as we would like. However, it is being actively pursued at ministerial level and by the officials in the Department and in the statutory agencies. We intend to keep that momentum going.
Pig and Poultry Sectors.
Paudge Connolly
Ceist:3 Mr. Connolly asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food her proposals to address the threat to pig farming and poultry production in counties Cavan and Monaghan posed by their non-inclusion in the recently announced nitrates directive derogation; her plans to minimise the difficulties for grassland and tillage farmers in accepting these top-quality organic fertilisers; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40704/06]
Ireland applied to the European Commission for a derogation, under the nitrates directive, from the limit of 170 kg of organic nitrogen per hectare per year. The derogation, as submitted to the Commission, would have applied not only to grassland farmers but also to farmers wishing to import pig and poultry manure. Unfortunately, this aspect of the proposal did not meet with the approval of the Commission and it did not form part of the Commission's proposal approved by the EU nitrates committee, involving the 25 member states, on 13 November.
However, producers in the pig and poultry sectors will benefit from transitional arrangements which were secured under the revised European Communities (Good Agricultural Practice for Protection of Waters) Regulations introduced in July 2006. These arrangements, which allow for phosphorus limits to be exceeded until 1 January 2011 for land using pig and poultry manure from existing farming enterprises, represent a major concession and they will give these industries time to adapt to the requirements of the regulations. In addition, the Department has introduced important measures which will benefit pig and poultry producers, such as access to the generous grant aid in the farm waste management scheme, as well as the inclusion under the scheme of elements of particular relevance to the two sectors, including decanter centrifuge systems, dry feeding systems for pigs and specialised slurry spreading tankers.
I have also introduced a pilot scheme for the demonstration of on-farm waste processing facilities to support the introduction in Ireland of new and emerging technologies for the treatment of farm wastes, such as anaerobic digestion and fluidised bed combustion. Grants of up to €400,000 are available under the measure which will be of particular interest to the intensive pig and poultry sectors. A number of research projects supported by the Department in areas covering efficient nutrient use, pig diet and solid-liquid separation of pig manure will also greatly assist the farmers involved. I am proposing some changes to REPS which would incentivise farmers in the scheme to take in pig and poultry manure. Should the Commission accept my proposal, these changes will contribute significantly to a solution of the problem.
I have no doubt that the Minister of State shares my concerns. The problem lies in what happens after the transitional arrangements expire. My difficulty is with the Cavan and Monaghan aspect of the problem. It appears to me that Cavan and Monaghan have been left out. A major part of our farming sector is made up of the poultry and pig industries and small farmers in these industries have great concerns for their future. That the derogation does not apply to them brings major problems. They feel they are being treated less favourably than other counties across the country.
As there is no derogation, the big problem is to make customer farmers comfortable about taking fertiliser that is organic. It appears that it is okay to put chemical materials on land. There are practical problems when putting the onus on the farmer to analyse the product that is coming in. The farmers feel that much of the onus is being put on them and that there are too many regulations. The last book of regulations contained 35 pages, which is a great concern to them.
They are also concerned about the helpline. Rather than other industries having to intensify and increase their volume, the pig and chicken farmers feel that their only way out is to reduce output. Are we expected to take chicken, pork and bacon off the menu? Will we start importing them? These foods must be produced here and this is a major issue for us in Cavan and Monaghan.
I accept the importance of the issues raised by Deputy Connolly. Deputy Crawford, Deputy Connolly and I are well aware of the different issues involved for the intensive industries in Cavan and Monaghan. We have established a working group on intensive livestock enterprises, which was specifically set up to consider issues facing the intensive livestock sector in the context of the nitrates regulations. The group recently met and includes representatives from the Irish Association of Pigmeat Processors, the Irish Poultry Processors Association, the IFA, Teagasc, the Environmental Protection Agency and representatives from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
Ireland and five other member states in the EU have received a derogation, but no country received a derogation on the importation of pig slurry and chicken litter. We must develop technology to deal with many of these waste matters. We have established a grants scheme to enable pilot projects to be established so that people can develop the technology that will deal with the disposal of this waste. I arranged for farmers — small and large-scale pig producers and poultry farmers — to meet with Department officials and specialists in the area. These meetings have been about trying to develop technology to deal with these particular waste problems. Substantial funds are available within the Department to assist in the development of this technology. From speaking to individual farmers involved in both industries, I know that they are not handing over the problem to other people. They want to be involved themselves in developing the systems that will deal with the waste on the farm or in central locations.
We have also provided money from the stimulus fund for a research project by Teagasc which involves the assessment of a solid-liquid separation system for pig manure and the influence of pig diet on the composition of solid and liquid fractions. A great amount of work is currently being done to devise systems so that we will have the proper technology in place to deal with the disposal of waste from these enterprises before the transition period ends. It was a major concession to obtain a transition period until 2011, because when we speak of waste disposal from pig manure, it is phosphorous rather than nitrogen that is the major problem. We secured a transition arrangement for phosphorous. Farmers can still take in pig manure and use up to 170 kg of nitrogen, without any regard to the phosphorous levels.
Phosphorous levels were the major concern of the pig farmers, rather than nitrogen. However, no other country has managed to get this particular aspect of a derogation. We put an enormous effort into seeking this derogation. We included in the regional derogation application this particular subject which was the focus of bilateral meetings. It was also raised by officials from the Departments of Agriculture and Food and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, and Teagasc, in their meetings and presentations to the Nitrates Committee of the European Union. Being realistic, I can only foresee these issues being removed from the agenda when the proper technology is developed and in place to deal with these particular waste problems.
In the short time that I have been in the Department of Agriculture and Food, the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, has been totally supportive of our having adequate financial resources to assist people to develop the technology to deal with these waste problems and that is the only successful route we can take.
There seems to be a difficulty in that consultations appear to have broken down with the farm organisations. They believe they have been hung out to dry in that they want help with the directives. They simply do not understand the directives fully. The other matter is the issue of a helpline. I believe there is a need for more consultation with farmers in that regard. The farm organisations believe that consultations have broken down.
In conclusion, I want to assure Deputy Connolly that there has not been a breakdown in communication. The group I refer to is particularly relevant as regards the subject matter of his question about the intensive industries that are important in our two counties. The working group on intensive livestock enterprises met no later than yesterday.
My information is three days old, for which I apologise.
We are doing our best.
Milk Quota.
Seymour Crawford
Ceist:4 Mr. Crawford asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the position regarding the new quota exchange scheme; the price the quota will be sold and bought at; the situation regarding the milk quota in the year 2013 or before; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40705/06]
The milk quota trading scheme 2007-08, which supersedes the milk quota restructuring scheme, will have two application periods allowing for the exchange of milk quota with effect from 1 April 2007. The first application period closed last Friday, 24 November 2006 and I expect to announce details of the second application period early in the new year. The trading scheme has two elements, a priority pool and a market pool, the latter to function through an exchange mechanism. Some 70% of quota offered for sale will be sold though the exchange, and sellers will receive a market price for quota based on supply and demand. The remaining 30% will be sold at a maximum price of 12 cent per litre to priority categories, namely successors, dairy farmers whose leases have expired, young farmers and category 1 producers. This price of 12 cent per litre is the same as that available for the full amount of quota sold into this year's milk quota restructuring scheme.
My Department has commenced the process of validating applications to buy and sell quota with the co-ops. When this work is completed the exchange will be run in early January and the results will be communicated to applicants through the co-ops at that time.
As regards the future of milk quotas, the position is that the EU milk quota regime was extended to 2015 as part of the Luxembourg Agreement on the reform of the CAP. The Commission may bring forward proposals as part of the 2008 health check to modify that position, which in turn may require a Council decision. I will keep the position under close review and in the meantime I will continue to facilitate the transfer of milk quota to active and progressive dairy farmers.
I wonder whether the Minister knows at this stage what interest there has been in the actual seller quota. She may recall the sham that arose last year with the two announcements within 24 hours of each other which meant that literally no quota was sold. I understand her reasoning behind this new scheme was to release the maximum quota so that younger farmers and those interested could take it. My information is that there is no great enthusiasm among sellers at present. There appears to be an enormous lack of understanding as to how this system should work.
On the last part of my question on the future of the milk quota, since the Minister expressed her belief some time ago that it was ending, can she give the House any further indication of her stand in this regard and when it is likely to happen? It is only in this situation that farmers are able to gauge what they can afford to pay. From the information I have, certainly in the northern areas, the amount of money that is being offered by buyers is not so different from what the price is for the 30%. Is that the situation further down the country or can the Minister say whether there will be major differentials?
For the Deputy's information, I have received more than 5,500 applications from dairy farmers. Buyers account for 4,700 of those applications and more than 850 have applied to sell. The amount of quota involved for this part of the year is 125 million litres. Some 125 million litres were sold the previous year, but this is only one half of the quota year because as the Deputy knows there will be a further opportunity in February and March. I will be announcing the date fairly soon at the beginning of the year, after we have evaluated the outcome of this one.
At this stage I cannot give the Deputy any notion on price because we are just going through the system to determine what variations exist at the moment. Therefore, contrary to concerns that existed heretofore, we have significant interest in this scheme, and that is good to see. As regards the future of quotas, the Commissioner indicated that she had a personal viewpoint, as had the Commission. The Commissioner, not I, indicated that the relevance of quotas was something that had to be questioned. As the Deputy knows we are now in the 2008 health check situation, looking at the reform of the quota regime. It will take place after 2015, because this comes under the Luxembourg Agreement. However, we are taking a strategic view on how we develop and support efficiencies within the system and allow the issue of scale to be dealt with. It is on the basis of those policy frameworks that we are working towards what we should like to achieve.
The issue of whether quota will be removed has not been decided. It will be a matter for Council and for some fairly serious discussions and negotiations in due course. However, no definitive view has been expressed by either me or the Government on where, in fact, we should stand on this issue. It is one that will have to be developed in consultation with Members of the Oireachtas, the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food and the farming organisations.
The Minister has said that what is being made available is similar to last year. However, last year was the lowest for a long time. How does it compare with the previous year and will any steps be taken to encourage the movement?
My view is that when we take a full year amount which will straddle both the end of this year and the beginning of next there will be much more interest than in previous years in the purchase and sale of quota.
That concludes Priority Questions as Deputy Sargent is not present.
Question No. 5 lapsed.