I thank the Chairman of the Joint Committee for the kind invitation to address the committee today. The Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers' Association, ICSA, firmly believes in the importance of communicating with all members of the Oireachtas on a regular basis, thus ensuring that members are up to date on the issues that concern ICSA. Today, I intend to discuss the main problems facing Irish farming and hope we can use this opportunity to share our thoughts and ideas on this important subject. Almost all the problems facing our members can be summarised as follows: bureaucracy, more bureaucracy and bureaucracy gone mad. I firmly believe that when the history of agriculture of our time is recorded the lunacy of William Woods and his halfpence will pale into insignificance. ICSA is not against regulation or strong codes of practice but is embarrassed by regulations that are impractical and unworkable, designed by bureaucrats with little practical knowledge of farming. The emergence of such regulations is a source of deep frustration to both farmers and departmental officials, who have the job of implementing them.
Rather than trying to address all the issues, and all of them are important, I propose to deal with just a few examples of this bureaucracy in order to use the time effectively. Bureaucracy impacts on cross-compliance and penalties under the new single payment regime and the special beef premium overshoot and prescription only medicines. When we addressed the joint committee last year, we outlined the key components of a strategy to maximise the benefits of the new regime. One component was to ensure a balanced, fair and sensible regulatory environment. I am sorry to say that since then I have become more concerned that things are not moving in the right direction.
ICSA made a submission on cross-compliance, penalties and inspections, last autumn. Our key proposals are based on the belief that any farmer making a genuine and bona fide effort to farm in line with the aims and objectives of the single payment scheme and who is working to produce quality food, with appropriate standards of animal welfare and environmental care, should not be subject to sanctions, which are only appropriate to criminals. Genuine farmers should not be subjected to witch-hunts nor should their livelihood hang in the balance over a few clerical errors or minor shortcomings.
We argued that farmers were entitled to a 95% rule whereby any farmer who has 95% or better accuracy, or 90% in the case of sheep farming, in his or her paperwork, herd register, movement documents and so on should be regarded as fully compliant, provided the farmer makes an effort to sort out the remaining issues within a 21 day period after the farm inspection; a clean break rule which would mean that no penalty could be applied to errors relating to the period before the introduction of the single payment system on 1 January 2005; a yellow card system for any shortcomings relating to the other requirements of cross-compliance; 14 days notice of inspections; no more than 1% penalties for first time offenders under the single payment, except in the case of farmers who are flagrantly abusing the system — ICSA holds no torch for such farmers; the right to appeal not only the penalty but also the level of the penalty. Since then the Department has proposed a penalty points system. The system proposed is unacceptable because it is draconian. The Department approaches the implementation of cross compliance and penalties with a zeal that makes car clampers look like a bunch of altar boys. It is not acceptable to apply penalty points just because a farmer forgets to sign an animal passport. It is not acceptable to have a penalty points system where farmers will inevitably clock up 16 or 20 points with a handful of minor clerical errors. The Department even suggested points for a clerical error in registering a calf. No trade union would accept this type of abuse for clerical officers in the Department. Why should farmers have to put up with it?
ICSA has put in a counter proposal for credits for farmers. If farmers are subjected to penalty points for minor infractions, they should be entitled to credits for high standards of compliance in general. I will give three examples where farmers should get credits. They should get five points where 95% or more of calves are registered on time in the year of inspection. They should get five points where 95% accuracy is achieved on herd register. They should get five points where all relevant farm-to-farm movement documents are available. These credits could then be set against any penalty points incurred to reduce the overall penalty point score. The irony is that officials are quite proud that the CMMS system is 98% accurate, because this is the best in Europe. However, it is not 100% accurate. If this is considered an excellent achievement by an army of 4,500 professionals, with vast platoons of trained clerical officers, how can a humble farmer can be punished for only achieving the same level of accuracy?
This is not a trivial matter. Members must realise what is at stake for farmers. A farmer with a single entitlement of €25,000 could get fined €750 for a few minor shortcomings. That is not a fair penalty. If the Department of Agriculture and Food was in charge of motoring penalty points, there would be no more problems with toll bridges, because half of all motorists would be put off the road.
Beef producers have been dealt a double blow in two years following the overshoot of the 2004 special beef premium national quota. The overshoot currently stands at 29%, which could result in a 40% reduction in payments for farmers that applied on more than 25 animals. Many of these cattle farmers depend almost exclusively on special beef premium for their income, retaining only 60% as actual profit. While the final percentage is not yet known, serious financial loss will be inflicted on approximately 28,000 farmers costing the sector in excess of €I00 million. An overshoot also occurred in 2002 following the announcement that 2002 was to be a reference year for the decoupled single farm payment. This problem will only be resolved at the highest political level between the Minister and the Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development. ICSA will insist that no stone be left unturned in finding an equitable solution.
There are two key points the Minister must make to the Commissioner to find a solution to this problem. It must be made clear that this overshoot happened because of the transition from the old premia system to the new decoupled system. Ireland's correct decision to opt for full decoupling should not now be penalised. Last year, the former commissioner, Mr. Franz Fischler, stated that countries that introduced full decoupling would not be penalised for doing so. However, this overshoot is an example of a penalty caused by the changeover. The national quota is based on the combined number of applications for nine month and bull premiums. Why is there a corresponding cut in the 21 month premium even though no quota exists for this category? If Ireland had a 21 month national quota equivalent to the 1.077 million nine month and bull quota, we would still be under the 2004 quota by 5.5%. Implementing the regulation in this way is effectively a double penalty imposed on farmers without any just basis. This anomaly needs to be answered in the interests of fair play. It was either introduced intentionally or it was written into the regulation by eurocrats unaware of the net effect.
This premium cut is symptomatic of a premium system that was fundamentally flawed from the outset. Farmers who depended on special beef premium for their income represented the only sector not to receive an individual quota. Dairy, suckler cow, sheep and tillage farmers all had individual quotas and they knew they would not be paid for production above that level. The 28,000 affected beef producers that depend on the special beef premium for their income feel aggrieved, as the majority of them have been applying for the same number of animals in the past four years, yet they have been penalised in two of those years as a result of an increase in the level of application by other farmers. I want Members of the Oireachtas to push for fair play for these farmers. This is the last time this issue will arise, but that does not mean we can all sit on our laurels.
Prescription-only medicines represent another example of over-regulation and badly-thought-out rules. All antibiotics are already prescription only and are only available from a veterinary surgeon. ICSA has no problem with this. However, there is a need for common sense when applying routine doses, supplements and vaccines. Once again, there is a risk that Ireland will end up with an unduly rigorous system out of line with the rest of Europe. This will lead to a monopoly if only vets are allowed to prescribe all animal remedies. There already is compelling evidence that Irish farmers are paying more for routine veterinary products and doses than anyone else in Europe or worldwide. We want to see the same system that operates in Northern Ireland, whereby either a vet, a pharmacist or a licensed merchant who has undertaken a recognised training programme can prescribe low risk products such as doses for worms and fluke. This will ensure there is competition so that prices for these products are kept under control.
The Minister recently met her Northern Ireland counterpart, Ian Pearson, which is very welcome. However, it must herald a close synchronisation of rules north and south of the Border. It makes no sense to have two vastly different regimes in place, especially when it comes to veterinary medicines. Any attempt to develop two regimes will only lead to a cross-Border black market, which would be the worst of all for farmers.
I thank members of the committee for their attention. I do not want to give the impression that the Department of Agriculture and Food is responsible for all problems in Irish farming. However, a key point is that we must not allow over-zealous and unfair regulation to undo all the good work.