JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 6 Dec 2005

Nitrates Directive: Presentation.

Vice Chairman (Deputy Healy-Rae)

The joint committee will hear a presentation from the IFA on the implementation of the nitrates directive. This meeting was specially convened, at short notice and at the request of the pigs and pigmeat committee of the IFA, to discuss this matter. I welcome the IFA delegation consisting of Mr. John Dillon, president, Mr. Pat O'Keeffe, chairman, national pigs and pigmeat committee, and Mr. James Brady, executive secretary.

I draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I also draw attention to an e-mail received today from a committee of Dairygold Co-operative Society Limited. The e-mail claims that the nitrates directive, in its current format, could spell the end of interdependent relationships between pig and poultry producers and neighbouring dairy, beef and tillage farmers. It asks whether the delegation will clarify this in its presentation and urges the joint committee to support the industry by seeking amendments to the directive which would enable the pig and poultry industries to continue to operate in Ireland. It also asks that the joint committee clarify what precisely is required in this respect.

Mr. John Dillon

I welcome this opportunity to highlight to the joint committee the concerns of farmers, primarily in the pig sector, regarding the nitrates action programme and the draft regulations proposed to implement it. The nitrates action programme and regulations must be based on sound science. We now know that this is not the case and that science is being abused and misinterpreted in a manner that will irreparably harm commercial agriculture, in particular, our important pig and poultry farming sectors.

I am gravely concerned at the scientificjustification and implications for farmers of provisions included in the regulations which would impose total fertiliser limits for both nitrogen and phosphorous fertilisers. The detail, included in tables which form part of the regulations, implies a level of precision not to be found in science or farming. This does not form a basis for the criminal prosecution of farmers or the imposition of legal or administrative penalties which could deny them their single farm payment under cross-compliance requirements.

I have argued that agriculture has nothing to fear from fair implementation of the nitrates directive which has been around since 1991. However, this has not been my experience to date. I am amazed at the lengths to which the Government appears to be prepared to go to over-regulate farming through this directive. Before I ask Mr. O'Keeffe, chairman of the national pigs committee, to give a more detailed presentation, I emphasise that farmers will continue to act as the guardians of the countryside and our high quality environment. They wish to farm in a manner which is sustainable and in harmony with EU-wide environmental standards. However, this does not require the sterilisation of farmland, as proposed in the biased draft regulation. Farmers here must be allowed to compete on equal terms with farmers in other EU countries. This is not the case. In this connection I highlight regulations in place in just three other jurisdictions, England, Scotland and the Netherlands.

I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to raise these issues with the joint committee. I ask my fellow farmer and colleague, Mr. O'Keeffe, to make his presentation.

Mr. Pat O’Keeffe

I thank the Chairman and members of the joint committee for inviting the Irish Farmers Association to meet them today to discuss the impact some elements of the draft nitrates regulations will have on the pig and poultry sectors, currently valued at €1 billion per annum. There are 1,500 commercial pig and poultry farmers in Ireland, producing more than 3.5 million pigs and 65 million chickens per annum. These sectors provide direct employment for more than 10,000 people and support many other service industry jobs. They are also a major market for native cereals, using 1.1 million tonnes of cereal valued at €140 million annually. The cereal sector consists of 16,500 tillage farmers, with an average acreage of 100 acres. These three sectors account for 14% of agricultural output and are, therefore, significant in a national context.

Pig and poultry manure is distributed to 20,000 farmers who use it in accordance with good farming practice to produce cereals or grass. The value placed on this product is in excess of €10 million. The total amount of nutrients available from pig manure is approximately 3,000 tonnes of phosphorus and 10,000 tonnes of nitrogen per annum. These volumes account for a small fraction of the 43,000 tonnes of phosphorous and 360,000 tonnes of nitrates imported in chemical form. This import business provides few jobs, whereas the pig farming sector employs a large number to distribute and sell our products to other farmers.

The IFA has identified areas in which we believe the current draft national regulations exceed the requirements of the nitrates directive. These excesses will discourage the number of farms which will utilise pig manure as a fertiliser source in preference to imported chemical fertiliser and seriously damage the future prospects of many pig and poultry farms. The directive specifies an organic nitrogen limit and requires that current codes of good farming practice be incorporated into national legislation to protect waterways considered to be vulnerable to nitrate pollution from agricultural sources. It is a matter for each member state to implement the directive as the minimum standard. The IFA believes the Government has chosen to exceed this requirement in ways which adversely affect the pig and poultry sectors and other commercial farms, while delivering no gain to the environment.

Farmers have been required to implement codes of good farming practice in recent years. Some 50,000 have been encouraged to sign up to the REP scheme, the most environmentally sustainable form of farming, over this period. Having paid farmers to participate in the scheme, it appears the requirements of the REPS are no longer considered sufficient as the draft regulations exceed the requirements of the scheme in certain areas. I will list a number of examples where the REPS specifications and codes have been exceeded. In so doing, the requirements of the directive have also been exceeded. In the second schedule to the draft regulations numerous tables set into law detailed fertiliser rates and recommendations. These are different from the REPS 3 requirements and previous Teagasc guidelines. This schedule is excessive and not suitable for inclusion in any regulation. In addition, the standards proposed are in excess of those provided for in many other member states.

The measure of soil fertility set out in the regulations is the Morgan's P test, which we understand has a wide co-efficient of variation depending on field type, previous crop and ground conditions at sampling time. That is not a sound basis on which to deliver the level of precision expected of farmers. This test and associated schedule should not be included in the regulations but referred to as a recommendation outside the regulations, as is currently the case.

In their current form the draft regulations will have serious, negative effects on many farms and close a large number of them. In particular, they will severely reduce the traditional customer base for pig manure. With no alternative use for the manure produced, many farms will have to cease production or reduce stock numbers. As officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Department of Agriculture and Food now acknowledge this, this acknowledgement must be reflected in major changes to the draft regulations. At a minimum, tables 12 to 22, inclusive, must be removed under Article 16.

I thank the Chairman for affording me this opportunity to highlight our real concerns in this regard. We hope common sense will prevail to prevent the unnecessary exit of pig and poultry farmers from production, with no environmental gain.

Senator Brennan

I thank the IFA delegates for their presentation. Concerns have been raised by many farmers about the Teagasc report sent to the Minister when reaching his conclusions. The IFA representatives may like to say a few words about these concerns and the role the report played in the case made to the Minister and the Department. Many farmers are concerned that it cannot be legally substantiated and may cause problems for farmers if implemented in its current form.

Mr. Tom Hanrahan

I worked with Teagasc for 25 years and I am now a farmer with a licence. I wish to answer the specific question of why we are concerned about the science involved. Teagasc always made recommendations on soil fertilisation and nutrient content. The level of phosphorus is based on the Morgan's P test, an agronomic test which is totally unsuitable for inclusion in a legal document in so far as it has a wide coefficient of variation. This means, for example, that if ten technicians take samples, it is possible to obtain values ranging from four to eight, which would still give a mean level of six. The difficulty we have is that in this document which purports to be legal there is a differentiation between lands with a P level ranging from 6.1 to ten, which are considered to be over-fertilised and on which we cannot apply phosphorus in the future, apart from meeting specific demands on phosphorus levels taken from the soil. If we take a gallon of milk, we can measure the level of phosphorus in it and put back that amount.

These recommendations were presented as a guide, but it cannot be said we have a test that accurately differentiates between lands with a level ranging from 6.1 to ten as being different from lands with a level ranging from three to 6.1, with results that can be out by four parts of a million in any particular field. This issue will cause undue hardship because the results could be interpreted widely by different technicians and are now being interpreted on a legal basis. The test cannot differentiate. One may ask why the measure of 6.1 is in place. It was a recommendation or guideline from an agronomic viewpoint. It was in no way related to legal requirements. That is the major issue.

The Teagasc recommendations state that if one has land with a P level ranging from three to 6.1, one should add a little more phosphorus to satisfy the demands of one's crop or livestock. If the level ranges between 6.1 and ten, there is a different recommendation. Now these figures are being taken as absolutely correct for the stock numbers or crops involved, with no allowance for any excess or variations in the test, climate, growing conditions and sowing time. There are so many aspects involved that it is totally unrealistic to take something presented as a recommendation and cast it in law.

To support what our president, Mr. Dillon said, we agree with the nitrates directive and proceeding with agricultural production in a manner that does not harm the environment. There was a time when it was recommended that we use much higher levels of nutrients or fertiliser. We have conceded that we will reduce the levels of fertiliser used on land with a P level higher than ten but one is splitting hairs when one considers the legal constraints.

I have experience of operating a licence for six years under the EPA as an intensive pig farmer. We are inspected and tightly controlled. We have made a lot of changes to our production system and the way in which we record and distribute manure to farmers. Introducing these regulations now will halve the operation. It is difficult to comprehend they now wish me to spread manure on double the amount of land, placing tremendous constraints on everyone with whom I am dealing. As regards the customer-supplier relationship, it will break up a business completely.

Deputy Cuffe

I appreciate the time taken and efforts made by the IFA representatives in coming here today. It is not easy to do but they have made the case very clearly.

Good practice must be based on good regulations which need to be based on good science. That is where the IFA's concerns lie. Farmers are not receiving enough attention and recognition for the conditions under which they are working. The Department of Agriculture and Food should listen carefully to what they are saying. From what I have heard today, the Department is being blinkered in stating, "We have to comply with the directive. There is no way out". It seems the IFA is making scientific arguments that there are ways and means of complying without giving as rigorous a response. We must listen to what the representatives are saying and then bring in representatives of the Department to have it out with them. I will be happy to do so because it is important farmers' livelihoods are protected.

Chairman

That is a very good idea.

Deputy McCormack

I agree that our main meeting will be with representatives of the Department of Agriculture and Food, but we may wish to clarify some matters with the IFA delegation also. I gather from the presentation that the IFA is not satisfied that the nitrates directive has a sound scientific basis. Does it contend that not all of the land of Ireland needs to be subjected to the directive? According to some sources, less than 20% is vulnerable. Is that the IFA's opinion also? Is it satisfied with the actions of the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, as regards the directive? Has it met eitherMinister? If so, what was the outcome?

Senator Bradford

I thank the Chairman for allowing those of us who are not members of the committee to attend and hear this very interesting presentation.

There were several meetings last week. The Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food certainly met and heard of this debate. In my capacity as a member I attended an interesting meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, at which the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Department of Agriculture and Food, Teagasc and some of the gentlemen here today were present. We had a two or three hour discussion. I will not say it was fruitful, in the sense that progress may not have been made. However, we debated the issues that the committee wishes to debate with the Department of Agriculture and Food and perhaps the Minister herself. We probably emerged more confused than when we went in.

Some members have asked about scientific facts and whether this is fact or fiction. Does the deputation accept that, as far as anything in this directive was scientific, the nearest we got last week was a statement from the gentleman from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government that he was working on the genesis of a set of proposals using not a record but a five year old estimate? We were quizzing him on what figures and apportionment of blame to the farming community the Department was using to determine responsibility for the pollution of our water supply. If I recall correctly, we were told that he had based his assessment on a five year old estimate, not even a five year old set of statistics. We want to air this further.

I wish to refer to what has just been said on the Teagasc report or recommendations to the Department. That was probably also part of the Bible. I am now advised, with colleagues, I am sure, that in an internal memorandum to the Department of Agriculture and Food and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government last week Teagasc stated it was no longer able to substantiate the figures used in the calculation. I am not saying anything new, but I hope the Chairman will act on members' invitation to the Department of Agriculture and Food, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and all the main players. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is pushing the issue, which I suppose makes it the core Department, but we must also recognise that we are not at the 23rd hour but the 25th.

I am no expert, but we were advised last week that unless the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government signed up to the entire directive very soon, the authorities would be unable to work on the derogation that it had claimed it would seek in Brussels, which might improve matters marginally. Perhaps there will be comments in that regard. However, I thank the delegation for attending.

This issue has been before us politically and we may all have been remiss in having our eyes shut since the early 1990s. However, it is of crucial importance to agriculture and rural Ireland. As someone who represents a largely rural constituency, I can say the farming community has always been the prime guardian of the rural environment. We must remind ourselves of this from time to time. When we hear of directives from Brussels, we perceive them as a way of catching up on environmental issues. The bulk of work done in rural Ireland to preserve it and keep our environment clean is done by the farming community. That is why this directive which looks as if it is being implemented very much goes overboard. We have no scientific backup to say it is required. The cost of entering into it with our eyes shut will be very high for rural Ireland. I speak not only of the farming community but of all those who depend on rural Ireland for an income. They will pay dearly unless we can re-examine this issue.

I know we are having this debate at the very last minute, but I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to speak. I hope the committee can exert serious pressure on the Minister to reconsider the matter. I know her own party has been debating the issue and that some of her colleagues will speak up. It is extremely urgent that we impress upon her that this should not be a "done deal" and that we should not walk blindfold down an alleyway in a manner that can only hinder rural Ireland, while probably doing absolutely nothing to protect the environment.

Mr. James Brady

I, too, welcome Deputy Cuffe's comments. In this country we base regulation on solid science and fact. Ultimately, we must all live with this. If something is found in our favour, we would like to take advantage of it. If something is found against us, we will have to live with the consequences.

Regarding Deputy McCormack's comments on the need for a sound scientific base, when our president was elected four years ago, he said he was not afraid of fair implementation of the nitrates directive. That applies to every farmer in the country. We have examined the position in other countries and see how they interpreted the same regulation. Obviously, we would have been quite happy if the same level of regulation had been introduced in Ireland. Clearly, that has not been the case, since there are elements in our legislation that are too prescriptive or precise and could not possibly be achieved from day to day on a farm. This regulation has been set up to have a close inspection. It will not be implemented without active inspection. We know that it will be so and that is proper, but only if the regulation is right.

Regarding the science involved, Teagasc stated before the Joint Committee on European Affairs last week that it stood by the science involved from an agronomic perspective. However, regarding interpretation, the tables at the back of the document are too precise, with very small units. Mr. Hanrahan has mentioned that it is not possible to be so precise in the measurement of those units. Perhaps Teagasc now recognises this. There have been suggestions it has notified the Minister accordingly regarding the level of precision in its recommendations. They were included for several years in this book, being revised only in 2004. They were more or less in line with the REPS recommendations. It has accepted that the recommendations in the book are based on solid science. We know we have farmed to that advice and will continue to do so. However, when it is changed from advice and inserted into a legal instrument in such fine detail, difficulties arise. When one does not have an accurate measure of something, it is very hard to live by it. That is the scientific issue.

On the designation of the country as a vulnerable area instead of identifying specific regions, we come back to the point that if the regulation is implemented fairly, it will not impose severely restrictive practices on any farmer. If it is interpreted fairly, as happened in 2003, that will not be a specific issue. If there is a fair and reasonable interpretation, we could all live with it.

Regarding our meetings with the various Ministers, I attended some, as did my colleagues, Mr. Dunne and Mr. Devlin, with the president and others such as the chairman, Mr. O'Keeffe. They have tried to impress this point on the Ministers at various stages. Clearly, the Ministers acted in accordance with the best advice available to them at the time from their Departments. We are all becoming more acutely aware of the very precise implications this issue has.

In the pig and poultry sectors we have known for some time that the directive would have devastating effects, once again without environmental gain, since we produce two products, pigs and pig manure. If we are not operating in a competitive environment regarding trade in either, we have no future. Regarding pigs, we are able to compete on performance, technical efficiency and costs. However, we are now competing against stiffer regulation than applies in countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark, where more than 20 million pigs a year are produced, compared with between 3 million and 3.5 million here. Our scale makes us insignificant in European terms, since we account for less than 1% of EU pig production. To attribute many of the environmental problems or trace the myriad of regulations the sector would be compelled to apply would be very difficult.

I will move on to deal with Senator Bradford's point.

Deputy McCormack

I apologise for interrupting but did Mr. Brady say he met the Ministers for Agriculture and Food and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in respect of this matter?

Mr. Brady

Yes, I met them separately. As I said, I was not present at all those meetings. I was present at a meeting with the Minister for Agriculture and Food on two separate occasions and we tried to impress these points upon them.

Deputy McCormack

I did not expect Mr. Brady to indicate whether he was satisfied with the actions of the Minister in this regard. I attended dinners to mark 50 years of the IFA and heard the Minister being praised for the wonderful work she is doing and so on. When we raise these matters with her, she tells us the IFA is satisfied with her actions. I was trying to establish whether we are talking about speeches made at dinners celebrating 50 years of the IFA or whether we are discussing facts. If we are to be serious about changing the directive, we must have the Minister for Agriculture and Food on our side. I wonder if she is onside as far as the IFA is concerned.

Deputy Moloney

That remark was totally unnecessary. The issue had been——

Deputy McCormack

I did not interrupt anybody who spoke. I am a member of this committee and I will ask any question I want.

Deputy Moloney

I am also a member of the committee. The record should be put straight.

Deputy McCormack

I asked a question of the deputation. I did not ask it of anybody else.

Deputy Moloney

The Deputy is trying to throw muck.

Deputy McCormack

No, I merely want to be clear on where we stand. I am only praising the Minister, just like the IFA.

Mr. Dillon

I will respond clearly. We will be satisfied with the Ministers for Agriculture and Food and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if this matter is solved to our satisfaction. This does not appear to be happening at present. My colleague, Tom Dunne, made our position clear in terms of what we want. From a scientific point of view, if it is scientifically based we will have to go with it but not until then. That is when we will be satisfied. If we praise the Ministers from time to time, it is on different issues and from different points of view. I have met both Ministers at different times on different issues and I got on fairly well with them. I am not happy with this issue but I hope we will come to a resolution.

Deputy McCormack

That clarifies the point.

Senator Bannon

I welcome the deputation from the IFA. I have received many representations from pig and poultry farmers in counties Longford and Westmeath and across the midlands on this issue. The nitrates directive, as the leader of the IFA said, has been on the agenda for the past 14 years but there would be less pain now if it had been acted upon earlier. The leader of the IFA said that Irish agriculture had nothing to fear from fair implementation of the directive.

Mr. Dillon said in his submission that the regulations must be based on sound science, an assertion with which I agree, but he went on to state, "We now know that this is not the case and science is being abused and misinterpreted in a manner ...". Who is misinterpreting the science? Is it officials in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government or officials in the Department of Agriculture and Food? There is a contradiction between what the officials in both Departments are saying and it appears both Ministers are listening to what is being said in their respective Departments rather than acting on the best possible advice. Some officials in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government appear to be intent on closing down our pig, poultry and dairy industries.

It is disturbing that those officials are not aware that, as outlined in media reports and by officials from both Departments recently, farmers will be put out of business if the nitrates directive is implemented. We understand that some countries obtained concessions. A small percentage of farmers in Denmark got concessions but it appears that nothing is happening here with regard to concessions. The Government appears to be adopting a "one size fits all" approach on this issue. There are different land structures in various parts of the country and that is something that must be addressed more on a regional basis.

Both Ministers must take responsibility for this issue, which has the potential of destroying farming, and ensure that there is a transitional period in respect of it. There is an onus on both Ministers and their departmental officials to come together and deal with it because Ireland will be fined and will be the laughing stock of Europe if we cannot make a decision on this issue. It is impossible for farmers to acquire additional lands for the spreading of manure and it would be of great assistance if a transitional period was allowed. That is something we should move on at this late stage.

Mr. Tom Dunne

If I may, I will give the committee an overview of this regulation. In 1973, 93,000 tonnes of chemical phosphorus was purchased and used by agriculture. Currently, we are talking about 40,000 tonnes per year. There has been a massive reduction, therefore, in the amount of chemical phosphorus being purchased. When we consider that 40,000 tonnes of chemical phosphorus is used but that only 3,000 tonnes of this is used in the pig farming industry, it is ridiculous that pig farming is being threatened in this way.

Ireland's case for a derogation is based on a hierarchy of nutrients, which is logical. The hierarchy is that the farmer first uses manure that is produced by the animals on his farm. He then uses manure produced in his locality. Following that, he uses whatever other by-products are produced, such as industrial or sewage sludge, and finally purchases imported chemical fertiliser. This is a logical and sustainable approach that is also good for the environment. Under this regulation, however, that hierarchy of nutrients is not allowed and this does not make any sense. There must be flexibility in terms of the regulation to ensure that this hierarchy of nutrients can be followed. It is good for farming, the environment and the economy.

Teagasc has stated clearly that the tables included in this regulation are not safe from a legal point of view. As a result, they should be removed from the regulation and flexibility should be built into it. As Mr. Dillon pointed out, we are happy to live within the overall nutrient requirements. We are not seeking to put extra nutrients on the ground. That is not the issue. The issue is to be allowed to follow the hierarchy of nutrients.

There is an interdependence in agriculture. The committee will be aware that the sugar industry is facing demise and putting huge pressure on the agriculture sector. The interdependence of grain on the sugar industry is obvious. The pig, poultry and dairy sectors, which are the ones that will be most affected by this regulation, are the highest users of grain. The pig sector uses 60% of the grain produced in the country. If the pig sector goes out of business, the grain industry will be finished. It has a knock-on effect from one sector to the next. It is vital, therefore, that this interdependence and interconnectivity of all the different sectors in agriculture be upheld and that common sense be applied. That is all we want in terms of this regulation.

When one considers that 8% of the agricultural ground or 20% of the tillage ground in the country could take the entire pig manure production, it is crazy that this regulation will threaten the livelihoods of pig and poultry producers, as well as those of people in the dairy and other sectors. It is ridiculous this cannot be accommodated in a common-sense regulation that will be good for the environment and support agriculture in what everybody is agreed will be very difficult times. We are being regulated out of business. We were promised freedom to farm by the European Commission. The former Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr. Franz Fischler, came to Ireland and promised the farming organisations that farmers would have freedom to farm but we find the farming sector is being regulated out of existence. There is no need for this to happen. We are asking for support and help in order that a reasonable and workable regulation will be put in place which will help agriculture to continue.

Senator Bradford

Mr. Dunne asserts that 8% of agricultural ground and 20% of tillage ground could take the entire amount of pig manure produced. The question of the accuracy of figures was an issue yesterday. Who supplied these crucial figures?

Mr. Dunne

They are freely available from Teagasc.

Deputy Moloney

I welcome Mr. Dillon and his officials. The IFA deputation has made it clear from the outset that it holds a strong position on protecting the environment. We should take account of its starting position. I fully support my colleague Deputy Bannon's comment that this issue rests with officials from the Departments of Agriculture and Food and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government working out the scientific base. We have spoken about this issue to both sets of officials in recent months, yet the ambiguity remains. I was delighted the joint committee agreed to invite officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to come before it and have the issue tested.

The Minister for Agriculture and Food is aware that the issue must be sorted out but both Ministers need to deliver on this issue. I met many pig producers, as have all other members of the joint committee, who invested heavily in the past year or two, never believing the guidelines and regulations would become so strict. Quite clearly, if that were the case, it should have been flagged, but it was not.

I was interested in the comparison with other European norms. I have heard senior officials suggest Ireland is bottom of the ladder in environmental controls to implement the nitrates directive. The Netherlands produces far more pigs than Ireland in an area the size of Munster. Quite clearly, their farmers should also be affected by the guidelines and regulations, yet there are no strictures and sanctions against pig producers in the Netherlands and I understand none is in the pipeline. Clearly, that contradicts the position.

The level of possible job losses should not be the overriding concern in any debate, but nevertheless one must consider the direct and indirect jobs created by the pig industry. The European Union now recognises that slurry is not a waste product. If the European Commission makes this quite clear, it contradicts the view of Irish officials. I heard the former Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr. Franz Fischler, speak when he made his statement in Goffs. I certainly remember that his premise was freedom to farm minus restrictions, albeit if restrictions were for the good of the environment, we would go with them, but the jury is still out. Until such time as officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government convince members that Ireland is in breach of the directive, contravening EU law and creating distress for environmental controls, we cannot support what is proposed, nor should the committee support it until the scientific evidence stacks up to suggest slurry is causing environmental difficulties.

Before the IFA deputation withdraws, will the Chairman ensure the committee is told clearly and in layman's language what is the scientific issue in order that when we meet officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, we can ask the questions that have not been clarified. We can then examine the responses to see if the legislation and directive are needed.

Deputy O’Dowd

I welcome the delegation and listened with great interest to what they said. I note, in particular, the number employed in the industry and the input the industry makes to the local and national economy. As I understand it, the Brosnan proposals were the collective wisdom of all sides but not acceptable to the European Union. Because of their rejection, the issue went back into the melting pot. Essentially, there must be a further change, which limits the operational capacity of the business.

I spoke to one of the largest pig producers in the country last week who outlined the key issue as an increasing reluctance on the part of other farmers to sign on to take the slurry. The reason they would not sign on was they would be open to greater scrutiny by Departments. This producer takes more than 7,000 acres of land each year to spread slurry.

Mr. Brady

I thank members for their contributions and will respond to Deputy O'Dowd's point. It is clear that pig producers have two products, pigs and pig manure. They have a definite market for their pigs. Currently, they also have a definite market for pig manure. However, if the introduction of more strict restrictions on farmers using pig manure is too severe, they will not be in a position to continue to use the manure as a fertiliser source and will seek alternative fertilisers.

The draft regulations are very precise. When farmers read the books, they understand the recommendations and allow for variations based on the type of farming engaged in, the type of fields involved and their location. However, the precise draft regulations do not allow for any variation and farmers will stay on the very safe side and not be found in breach of a regulation by under-fertilising their land or staying away from maximum limits. As we pointed out, clearly maximum limits are minimum limits in terms of agronomic advice. The precise draft regulations create a fear that acts as a disincentive and will prevent other farmers from using pig manure.

Several changes have been made to the Brosnan proposals. As farmers involved in the pig sector, if we are to look at the requirements of the directive very specifically and identify all of its requirements and implement them in a fair way, we could live with it. If the Departments were prepared to recommend this to Brussels as the bottom line, it would be similar to what other countries have done. The Netherlands and the United Kingdom have taken a minimalist approach. We believe the Departments are taking a maximum approach in terms of the regulations. Every country must implement the EU directive as a minimum; it can implement more stringent rules if it so decides. We acknowledge that we must comply with the bottom line, the same as every other country, but the additional burdens present the problem.

Deputy O’Dowd

Will Mr. Brady address the issue of a farmer taking slurry from a producer? Currently, he or she has no problem taking it; he or she has probably been doing so for years. What will be the change if he or she takes the same load this year? What has changed that will make him or her say, "No"?

Mr. Brady

Assuming he takes the legal load, there will be two issues from the date the directive is implemented. For a start, pig manure is made up of two products, nitrogen and phosphorus. The nitrates directive puts in place an organic nitrogen limit which refers to manure from livestock, whatever the source, be it on-farm or off-farm. If 170 kg is the limit per hectare, whatever amount of pig manure the farmer takes in is included in this figure. That is a restriction with which we feel we can live. The other restriction is based on the interpretation of the book mentioned which has, effectively, lowered the recommended phosphorus levels. It will automatically remove another block of farms that have traditionally used pig manure. The combination of the two will cut off a wide part of the customer base. This is not a result of just one or the other but a combination of the two. The requirement in the directive is clear — we should not supply over 170 kg of organic nitrogen. We will have to live with this, subject to a derogation being sought. However, the recommendations on phosphorus levels, in particular, as shown in table 13 in the draft regulations, present the main problem.

Deputy O’Dowd

Does that mean a pig producer must look for land of a different type on which to put pig slurry or must he or she look for farmland far away from watercourses?

Mr. Brady

No, it is chemistry. One can only supply a farmer who has a demand for fertiliser.

Deputy O’Dowd

To return to a point made, there is enough land in Ireland to take the volume. I find it difficult to understand the issue.

Mr. Brady

One can only supply a farmer what he or she requires for agronomic purposes. The directive puts in place an organic nitrogen limit, thereby automatically excluding intensive farmers who are big users of fertiliser from taking in pig manure. The less intensive farmer will be in a position to take in organic nitrogen but will be in less of a position to take in phosphorus. Therefore, the customer base is significantly narrowed, based on the recommendations made in the table.

What has been said about the 8% and 20% of agricultural land required for pig slurry is clearly the case. This is the case on a global scale. The problem is that in this country pig farms were developed to supplement small-scale dairy enterprises and others. They developed during the years into larger scale enterprises in order to make them economically viable. Some of the piggeries are located in tillage areas where there would be a big demand for manure, but others are not, for example, in the northern part of the country. In theory, therefore, it is correct to say only 8% and 20% of available grassland or tillage land will be required, but in practice the piggeries could be located in remote locations.

Mr. Hanrahan

In respect of what we have said a number of times, the hierarchical approach to fertilisers puts mineral fertilisers way higher than organic fertilisers. Despite the fact that a European court case has declared that organic fertilisers should be treated as such, that is not drawn into this legislation in its entirety.

Pig farming expanded, as did poultry farming. Farmers had to expand in order to remain economic. Having to change from grassland to tillage will move us to a different scenario. Tillage is also changing dramatically and spring barley is now the main crop. Under the EPA, we worked on the basis that storage facilties were required for 26 weeks. If we had to direct pig manure at one crop, we would need storage facilties for 52 weeks. It would mean having to bring all our machinery together in a timeframe of one month in order to spread all of the manure on tillage ground in the spring. There are many other restrictions also involved, which we have not put before the committee so as not to over-complicate the document which is already extremely complicated because it raises many issues relating to spreading on tillage lands with which, theoretically, we can deal.

In my case, if I have to implement the directive on 1 January, I will have to double my number of customers. Currently, I have 82. Therefore, I will have to find another 82 between now and 1 January. When I go to check them out, I may find that some of them have premises that my machinery cannot access. There is also a difficulty in that I will have to deal with all of them in the one month. I have traditionally taken on some work in the spring, following which it slackens a little. Then, perhaps in August or September, I spread on wetter land which will have dried out during the summer and on which I could not spread in the spring. One takes the opportunities as they rotate. Now, I must find other opportunities. Even within a timescale, I will not be able to adjust. The figures show that the land is available, but the problem is that one will have to find customers willing to take pig manure.

It should also be remembered that there is stiff enforcement of the regulations. Any individuals caught transgressing these laws have faced stiff enforcement measures. Some judges have even remarked on the number of experts, up to 20, that the Department of Agriculture and Food will bring in to deal with a minor case.

We must deal with the issue of inordinate costs. Let us remember that we are talking about farming. Let us also remember John Dillon's message to the people that farmers are poor. Although many have part-time jobs, wives with jobs or off-farm income, the income from farming per se is very low. Everyone must understand this. When we try to adjust to the directive and find customers who can handle the changes and invest from their farm income, they may be very willing to do so, but it may not just be feasible.

On the issue of sustainability, the attitude of the EPA is very strange from our point of view. Chemical analysis of our waterways suggests there has been a slight deterioration in phosphorus levels; that over a period farming reduced its phosphorus input by 20,000 tonnes annually. However, the EPA has picked up a low level increase in phosphates in waterways. This is at total variance with what we are doing.

What do we face next year when enforcement of the directive begins? We believe this document would not stand up legally on many issues. We are the ones fighting it, with very few resources. We want to alert everyone on the side of the directive to the fact that we do not want them to bring bad science to us. Bad science makes bad law. We are at the butt of enforcement, as can be seen, for example, from the court cases taken, on which I have a file and I am absolutely amazed by the results, on which some judges are commenting. There was a case in west Cork in which the Department of Agriculture and Food was defeated in the District Court. It appealed the decision but was defeated again. It took the issue to the Circuit Court and was defeated once more. The case had to do with two small cheese farms.

People are frightened. Many see this as a threat which they all face. The penalties such as a sentence of three years in jail are written in black and white. One faces double inspections if one takes manure from an organic source, even though chemically there is no great difference. Another cost one faces is the cost of consultants to advise on REPS payments. Generally, one hires a consultant who may charge more the first year but once the process has been set in train and the farmer keeps everything the same, the fee is approximately €300 per year. However, if the farmer starts to bring in organic fertiliser from a neighbouring pig or poultry farm, the issue becomes complicated and there is more form-filling. If the farmer is going to face double inspections, the consultant will have to come and supervise and as a result will need to be paid at least €200 more.

The playing field is being made more difficult in several areas, an issue we have not raised with the committee. We are generally in agreement with the nitrates directive. However, the science is flawed, with many other elements. Farmers are taking on board the threats they face in this regard.

Mr. Devlin

Mr. Hanrahan has outlined one of the points I want to make. The main reason farmers may be reluctant to take in pig slurry in the future, if this regulation is introduced, is there will be a maximum figure for phosphorus and nitrogen which will require a degree of precision not to be found in farming or science, based on a precise stocking rate. This will impose a limit on the quantity of manure farmers may take in. Also, as Mr. Hanrahan stated, a process of form-filling will be introduced and there will be a threat to the single farm payment if a producer exceeds any of the figures by even 1 kg. This information was meant to be extracted from the Teagasc recommendations for farm management purposes. It was never intended for use in a legal instrument. As Mr. Hanrahan stated, it is questionable whether it would stand up in such an instrument.

Deputy Moloney asked what the IFA was seeking. We want a requirement for farmers to follow best agricultural practice as set out in Teagasc recommendations. However, best practice is something that must be interpreted on the facts of the case, as acknowledged by agriculturists the world over. It is not appropriate that it should include a level of detail which does not stand up to scrutiny.

As Mr. Brady noted, other European action programmes of which we have experience do not include a maximum total or, if they do, it is a figure without reference to a stocking rate table such as the one in question. The programme worth bringing to the attention of the committee is the Dutch action programme which permits a high level of phosphorous of close to three times the level recommended for Ireland. For many years the Dutch have had some of the most rigid environmental legislation, allowing their farmers to continue in business and sustain themselves and their families.

Mr. O’Keeffe

From the mid-1980s to the early 1990s Enterprise Ireland encouraged a pig industry expansion programme to increase food production. As unemployment in the economy was high at the time, Enterprise Ireland focused on the food sector by providing substantial grants. That is how major pig production began. However, in the mid to late 1990s, when times got tougher, producers added extra sows to develop the industry.

Pig producers would like to stay in production. It is not our fault that the nitrates directive is not in place. It has been in existence since 1991, yet successive Governments have failed to implement it. The pig and poultry sectors seem to be the guinea pigs all of a sudden. Two weeks ago the beet industry was wiped out at the stroke of a pen. Is the Government about to strike off the pig and poultry sectors at the stroke of a pen also?

Common sense must prevail. Pig producers have been licensed since the mid-1990s. The terms of the nitrates directive state pig storage facilities must be in place by the end of 2006. If the climatic conditions and finances are right and if a system is in place, pig producers would accept this. However, given the level of regulation and the lack of return from the business, there is no hope of this happening. The dairy and beef sectors do not have to apply the directive until 2008, whereas the pig and poultry sectors have been singled out once again.

I operate an IPC licence, as do Mr. Hanrahan and over 100 other producers who account for more than half of national pig production. Ours is the most regulated sector of all. As chairman of the pigs committee, I have dealt with the nitrates action plan since 2003. The plan has taken different forms and differences arise in every new publication. There is no consistency whatsoever. The regulators and civil servants do not seem to want pig production. We must make up our minds whether civil servants or elected politicians who are supposed to represent us are running the country. There must be some level of consistency.

We want to continue farming. We were brought up as farmers. If the economics are right, we will continue farming but it seems we are to be kicked out of business one by one, as happened in the beet industry. The Government and civil servants do not seem to want pig production. Are producers a hindrance to society?

My colleagues have made their points to the committee. The problem lies with the nitrates action programme, Article 12, tables 12 upwards, which seem to have come out of the blue. We need consistency. We are stakeholders. Enterprise Ireland drove us into pig production from the mid-1990s onwards. Does the Government want to do away with production? The unemployment rate stands at 4% today. When it was at 10% and 12%, pig producers provided employment. We are citizens of the State and need respect. Our Dutch colleagues produce 20 million pigs in an area the size of Munster, whereas we produce just 3 million in the entire country. Cereal producers depend on us and if we go, they will go. This country will become a heritage park, which is perhaps what the State wants. Common sense must prevail.

Deputy Moloney

Mr. O'Keeffe has put his finger on it. Given the direction we are taking, perhaps some do not want the pig industry to continue in this country. For years producers were encouraged to invest in the industry, and there was no suggestion it would cease by way of EU regulation. Mr. Brady referred to the situation in the Netherlands. If the same restrictions were in place in Ireland as in the Netherlands, the implications would be different from those which will result from the current proposals.

What the IFA delegation has told us today contradicts the scientific evidence provided for us previously. It is clear that an independent arbitrator will be needed to decide on the scientific evidence available from the IFA and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The Department insisted all along that Ireland was the worst case in the European league, yet all the evidence suggests the pig industry is thriving in most countries of the European Union. The information is not consistent and makes me believe an attempt is being made to rid this country of its pig industry, which would be a shame.

I recently visited a pig producer in Ballinakill, County Laois, who spent €300,000 on improvements last year, not because he wanted to do so but because he wanted to remain within the terms of the directive and in business. If that level of investment is being made throughout the State, as I understand it is, we cannot ignore it. We must support producers. The sad reality is that the pig industry is not at the same level as the beef and dairy sectors which are the main players. If it were, more heed might be paid to pig producers.

Deputy Hoctor

I apologise for arriving late. As I am not a member of the committee, I thank the Chairman for giving me permission to speak.

Is it the case Teagasc provided incorrect advice on indexing? The advice given to the Minister and others was that index 2 was acceptable to the pig farming sector when we know it is index 3 that might be manageable. Information has come to me in this regard and I would like the point clarified. While nobody is perfect, if Teagasc gave incorrect advice, it must admit it.

Last week the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food heard from officials of the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Agriculture and Food on the scientific aspects of this matter. They stated the facts and figures supplied to them and us, the elected representatives, had not been supplied adequately. At that stage of the meeting we asked that pig farmers be allowed a lead-in time, which was not even a consideration at the time. The officials should not have to be asked for it. Given its scientific basis, they should know that farmers would need a lead-in time. I am relaying that information because it is important that people are aware of what happened at the meeting last week. I would welcome their comments on the matter.

Senator Scanlon

How can Denmark produce 20 million pigs a year in an area the size of Munster and still comply with the nitrates directive?

Senator Bannon

There are three groups of officials involved, namely, those from the EU Commission and from the Departments of Agriculture and Food and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. There is a conflict of opinion on the issue between the three groups. Would it be possible to get the officials together to give us accurate advice? Ministers are speaking out of both sides of their mouths on this matter. I have heard Ministers state, here and at other fora, that they are not sure what is happening and that the matter is still under investigation. This is very unfair because a huge number of young farmers are losing interest in farming. It is driving them off the land because the entire industry is over-regulated, which is a serious problem.

I ask the secretariat if there has been any formal response in recent days to Ireland's draft action plan in light of the recent facts made known by Teagasc and whether 8% of the land, including 20% of tillage ground, could carry manure? These facts should be presented in Brussels and pursued with some force to ensure that common sense will prevail. It is all about a common sense approach to farming. I am a farmer and, over the years, farmers have been very concerned about the environment. This has been encapsulated and supported by REPS during the past two decades.

Vice Chairman

Since the commencement of the meeting, it has become evident that all is not well. The president of the IFA, Mr. John Dillon, said that he met both Ministers, with whom he got on very well, but that he had serious concerns about the matter. The only way we can attempt to resolve this issue is to ask the officials from the Departments of Agriculture and Food and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to come before the committee at a meeting which should also be attended by representatives of the IFA. I agree with Mr. Dillon that the issue has not yet been resolved.

Mr. Dillon

I will ask Mr. Hanrahan to deal with some of the technical aspects and I will then deal with other aspects.

Mr. Hanrahan

I thank members for their interest in this matter, which is gratifying at such a difficult time. I thank Deputy Hoctor and other Deputies for being present.

Teagasc always issued recommendations on an agronomic basis. To have these transferred into a legal document is a step too far for Teagasc. Given the basis under which it operates, its tests will not stand up in a legal document with which it has difficulty. I do not know if it is fair to criticise Teagasc, which has seen the difficulty and commented upon it. It is correct to tell the Minister that there is a difficulty.

From the point of view of officials of the Departments of Agriculture and Food and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, they must deal with the Commission. As Senator Bannon said, these people are also involved and are exerting pressure. When pressure is being exerted from various sides, organisations such as Teagasc, which have a traditional role in agronomics, get squashed. Teagasc should be commended for what it has done because no one wants bad science or bad law.

This pressure causes difficulties for us. As county councils enforce regulations, many people involved in agriculture can be under pressure. There is evidence that some phosphorus and some nitrogen enters streams. We accept this because we realise that our house was not in order at all times. We agreed to opt for long storage periods in order to provide for the period during the winter when farmers are not spreading. This was designed to keep manures off the land at a time when there was a great chance that some of them would go through the land because of rainfall. While pig farmers have been doing this under licence for seven or eight years, the practice is not now acceptable.

The way we are being treated is very unfair. I refer, in particular, to people who were brought in under licence. Equally, it is very unfair to people who were under REPS. Just a year or two ago, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government commented that the nitrates directive would not cause undue hardship. It stated that those involved in the REP scheme were surpassing the requirements of the nitrates directive. This has changed totally in the new document.

Time heals many things. I already said that there will be more investment. The chairman of the national pigs and pigmeat committee said that there is a time limit of three years for the building of storage, which must be examined. When one discusses the issue with officials of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, they say that time has run out because we dragged our heels for 14 years. Who dragged their heels? They say we should be at stage 4 of the nitrates directive, which is a new requirement in the document. While we are grappling to get to stage 1, they are talking about stage 4. Who will invest in farming if there are engines coming down the track about which we have not been told. As Mr. O'Keeffe said, each time the document was presented to us in the past three or four years, it got more rigorous. As we considered whether to agree to issues, the next presentation was more rigorous.

Much pressure is emanating from the Commission in Brussels. We are aware that it is over-prescribing in regard to many issues. It is true that the Spanish Government took it to court where it was declared that animal manures and fertilisers should be treated as such. This declaration which was made in the summer has not been transcribed fully. The Commission transcribes the aspects that suit it but it does not transcribe the aspects that are fair to everyone. Our poultry industry is not self-sufficient. As we are putting more pressure on poultry farmers, we realise that we must import more poultry meat, despite the fact that some of it is sourced in Thailand.

It is strange that politicians cannot grasp this aspect and call a halt. We must revisit these discussions. My organisation is flexible. It is prepared to talk and make changes. Some farmers have lived under an EPA licence for seven or eight years. It applied to the first pig farmer, Mr. Tom Norton from County Kilkenny, in 1997. He has lived under this licence for eight years. I have held a licence since 1999. I was asked why people are reluctant to take organic manures. On one occasion, I accidentally gave a farmer 8 kg of P more than had been prescribed. That would amount to 8 cu. m, which is approximately 1,500 gallons of pig manure or one full tank. This error appears on my licence. If I am ever brought to court, the Environmental Protection Agency will state that there are non-compliances on my licence and cite the aforementioned example. In my defence, I would state that the man in question was left short of 54 kg of phosphorus in the previous year. However, this would not matter because the letter rather than the spirit of the law is taken into account. There is an element of gross unfairness.

Denmark and the Netherlands have taken a different view on this matter in that most of these environmental issues are administered through the county councils and are not subject to central administration. Mere citizens have different views on where the most democracy lies but we must admit there is much democracy in county councils. It is a kinder and more thoughtful type of democracy. I have great respect for the county councils, although they have rapped my knuckles hardest over the years in my capacity as a pig farmer. They have been on the spot, know my business better than others and do their job very well. I know the officials in Clonmel and Nenagh well. Although I have a Cork address, I farm in Tipperary. The council officials are serious and one cannot pull the wool over their eyes.

We have implemented these directives at central level. I assure members that dealing with them in a Dublin environment is not the same as doing so on the ground. Denmark and the Netherlands have adopted the latter approach.

Deputy O’Donovan

I apologise for being late. I am not a member of this committee but am lending my support because I had a number of meetings with the IFA and concerned farmers in west Cork. I accept Mr. Hanrahan's point that there is too much emphasis on bureaucracy. In my area, we are endeavouring to be the good boys of the class in Europe in respect of both fishing and farming. However, a balance should be struck. I feel strongly that we should get the balance right in this instance because there is no point in killing the industry. Farmers and fishermen must exist and if bureaucracy is to kill their livelihoods, we might as well pack up at this committee also.

Senator Bannon

An interdependent relationship still exists between farmers in this country and it does not prevail in other EU countries. This relationships stems from old methods whereby communities got involved in helping individual farmers. Farmers still contract to neighbours in respect of dairying, tillage and poultry and pig farming. EU Commission officials fail to understand this and their proposals are such that they want one cap to fit all. We should continue to make a special case for Irish farmers.

Vice Chairman

I ask the president of the IFA to conclude.

Mr. Dillon

It does not need to be stated that we are all in favour of a good, clean environment. However, what has happened over recent years, particularly in the past four, has been appalling in that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government did not take science into account. There has been unsound science all the way.

Senator Bannon referred to conflicting opinions. The people who know all about how grass and crops grow are those on the ground, including the Teagasc experts and researchers. They know how fertiliser and animal manures go through the ground. Have these people been in Brussels negotiating on our behalf? The officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government have gone to Brussels, as have some from the Department of Agriculture and Food, but I do not believe the scientists were there. However, I am not certain.

That which has happened up to now is nothing short of an abuse of science. When I became president of the IFA four years ago, the association employed a number of scientists. When we were negotiating the issues with the officials from the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Agriculture and Food, I detected great opposition to what we were trying to achieve. In the past couple of days in particular, Teagasc stated clearly that the guidelines put forward could not be regarded as a legal document because they could be adjusted under certain circumstances. I commend Teagasc for saying so. I hope the scientists are not pressurised into accepting a political decision.

I am critical of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government but I do not include the Minister in this regard because he is working extremely hard. At one meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, officials in the Department made reference to an estimate relating to agricultural pollution entering our waters that is five years old. It is based on a desk-top assessment and has nothing to do with actual science or fact. The estimate in question involves the subtraction of one figure from another in the belief that the remainder pertains to agriculture. It is a downright disgrace to use this figure, on an ongoing basis, to beat agriculture. It is a scandal and it needs to be addressed.

I thank the Vice Chairman and members for listening to our views. I hope something positive will emerge from this discussion such that we will ultimately have sustainable agriculture, including sustainable pig and poultry businesses.

Vice Chairman

I thank the delegation from the IFA for attending. The meeting has been very useful. With the agreement of the members present, namely Senators Brennan and Bannon, I will ask officials from the Departments of Agriculture and Food and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to come before the committee to address the IFA's concerns. Is it agreed to give the IFA delegates the option to attend this meeting, which is to be held on Thursday, 15 December? Agreed.

Mr. Dillon

I will be in Hong Kong on that date but I have very good and eloquent colleagues who will be able to attend.

Vice Chairman

Mr. Dillon has such colleagues, without doubt. The holding of the meeting is agreed, provided the Department officials agree to appear. We need to get everyone around the table to determine whether we can find a satisfactory conclusion to this matter.

Senator Brennan

On what date is the document due to be signed?

Deputy Hoctor

The date is 12 December but it may be signed before then.

Mr. Devlin

Deputy Hoctor referred to the date for signing the document. Mr. Dillon wrote to the Minister — I will leave a copy of the relevant correspondence with the secretariat — stating that, given that serious questions arise in regard to the fertiliser tables at the back of the document, the draft regulation is effectively unsafe. We have a serious interest in progressing the Irish derogation application, which we do not want to undermine. While the application should proceed, there should not be a circumstance whereby some artificial pressure cooker environment is created by the imposition of a date. If the document is unsafe, it is unsafe and should be corrected. I ask the Vice Chairman to make the point to the Minister that it is not correct to sign into law a flawed document.

Vice Chairman

We cannot have a meeting before 12 December.

Mr. O’Keeffe

There have been several deadlines on the issue in recent years.

Vice Chairman

We will try to make a further deadline. Is it agreed to hold a meeting on 15 December?

Mr. Hanrahan

I request the Minister not to sign the document until it has been discussed fully.

Vice Chairman

Of course. This will be communicated to the Department. I thank Mr. Dillon and the members of his delegation for clarifying matters and I wish him well in Hong Kong.

The joint committee went into private session at 4.43 p.m. and adjourned at 4.45 p.m. until Thursday, 15 December 2005.