Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Wednesday, 18 Feb 2004

Priority Questions.

Common Agricultural Policy.

Ceisteanna (18)

Billy Timmins

Ceist:

87 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the plans he has to deal with those people on the farm retirement scheme who will lose out under the changes proposed in the mid-term review; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4978/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (5 píosaí cainte)

My Department is involved in working groups and is in continuing discussions with the European Commission on the detailed rules for implementing the mid-term review agreement. While it may be some time before the position is clear, I have already raised, and will continue to raise, a number of issues relating to farmers who have retired under the early retirement schemes, and the implications for them of decoupling and the single payment scheme.

The legal position regarding the single payment system, as laid down in the Council regulation, is that entitlements are not linked to land but to farmers who were active producers during the reference period and remain active farmers in 2005. A farmer who joined the early retirement scheme has undertaken to give up farming permanently and therefore he or she cannot be regarded as a farmer when the time comes to activate single payment entitlements in 2005.

While retired farmers cannot activate entitlements earned during the reference period, the Commission, following negotiations, indicated that it favours arrangements that will allow family members who take over these holdings to have access to the national reserve. This would include cases in which the land was leased to a non-family member at the time of retirement because a family member, usually a son or daughter, was not yet ready or eligible as a transferee at the time, but subsequently takes over the farm. I will continue to work to secure as favourable an outcome as possible to these and other issues affecting retired farmers, having regard to the legitimate aspirations of the various stakeholders involved.

Will the Minister indicate when the full legal text with respect to the Fischler proposals will be decided? How many of those participating in the farm retirement scheme stand to lose out if the final proposal does not include a facility for people who did not transfer to relatives? I am aware that many of those on the scheme who leased to family members will not be affected, but I have received many letters on the issue, as I am sure the Minister has. I note the presence of Deputy Wilkinson who is compiling a report on the issue.

A system in which a person who enters into an agreement is heavily penalised several years later on the basis of agreed practices is inherently unfair, and let us not pretend people are not being penalised. Does the European Commission have available to it a mechanism which would facilitate those affected by the measures? While I accept that when someone takes a piece of the cake, someone else must forfeit it, is it possible, perhaps through modulation or some other method, to make a once-off payment to members of the scheme who can show they lost out significantly under the system?

I do not have a precise figure on the number of those affected, but some 10,000 farmers are on the retirement scheme. I expect that the vast majority of them are in a regular position, that is, members of their families took over the farm when they retired. We are probably talking about a couple of thousand people. As I stated, I am in negotiations with technical experts in Brussels with regard to this group.

As regards the final text, in discussion with Commissioner Fischler on Tuesday, I noted the importance of receiving the final text, which we were promised by Christmas, as quickly as possible. He informed me we should have it by mid-March, in other words, in one month. This is important for everybody concerned because people want to know where they stand with some degree of certainty, which will not be possible until we receive the final version of the legal text.

As the Deputy is aware, we will begin to implement the mid-term review from 1 January next. The Department, therefore, wants entitlements to be issued and appeals heard and so forth before that date.

In discussions with the European Commission, the Department secured favourable arrangements for those on the scheme who were not farming during the reference period but subsequently took over the farm. Given that the farmer, as opposed to the farm, receives the entitlement, in the event that a retired farmer let his or her land to somebody else, the person who farmed the land during the reference period will be eligible for the entitlements. We have received a favourable response from the Commissioner with regard to circumstances in which a family member has taken over the family farm subsequent to the reference period. This was one of the main complaints of those on the scheme.

Does the Minister have a definition of "family member"? Does it extend to nieces or nephews? Apart from those on the farm retirement scheme, many more people stand to lose, particularly those along the western seaboard who sold weanlings and so forth. Does the Minister have any proposals on behalf of this group? Did he receive many submissions on this issue under the force majeure clause, for which the closing date was a couple of weeks ago? Do many people in this category stand to lose out?

While we have not yet received the legal detailed text, we understand the term "family member" refers to immediate family members. We will not know for certain, however, until we receive a copy of the text in about four weeks. I will provide the Deputy with a copy immediately.

With regard to others who may be affected — I will answer a question on force majeure later — we intend to deal with this matter quickly because it must be addressed as part of our preparations for the implementation of the mid-term review on 1 January next.

Animal Carcases Disposal.

Ceisteanna (19)

Mary Upton

Ceist:

88 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the response that was received to the EU-wide tender competition to place contracts for the disposal of stored meat and bonemeal; the timeframe he now predicts for the disposal of the meat and bonemeal arising from the tender process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5113/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (5 píosaí cainte)

The deadline for receipt of tenders for the incineration of 172,000 tonnes of meat and bonemeal held since the BSE crises in late 2000 was 28 November 2003. Tenders were received from 18 companies in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and Ireland. Following a detailed assessment of the tenders, three proposals emerged as best, in being most economically advantageous and meeting the conditions of the published criteria.

Following discussions with my Department, one contract has been concluded and two more are nearing finalisation. The removal of material under the first contract started this week and it is expected that most of the material will have been removed and incinerated in the United Kingdom and Germany by the end of 2004.

Will the Minister of State elaborate on the tenders submitted from Ireland? I was not aware we were in a position to make such a tender and would be interested to receive further details about it. The Minister of State cited an amount of 172,000 tonnes of meat and bonemeal. In a previous reply, he indicated the total amount of meat and bonemeal in storage was approximately 210,000 tonnes. Is it correct that the shortfall of 38,000 tonnes is not under the control of the Department? What plans are there for its disposal?

As regards the first question, 18 tenders were received from all over Europe, including from several Irish companies. The tendering process was detailed and involved two rounds of negotiations with potential customers at which price and the cost to the State were discussed. As a result, three companies were selected. Contracts have not yet been signed with two companies, while the other company commenced operations this week.

As regards the second question on the balance of meat and bonemeal, as the Deputy will be aware, the process was transferred to the rendering companies in November 2003 when the Department divested itself from involvement in it, as had always been envisaged. The meat and bonemeal currently in storage is the responsibility of the companies, as agreed with the rendering industry at the time. It is possible that some of the companies in question may be waiting for a reduction in the price of incineration but its disposal remains their responsibility, and not that of the Department.

Does the Minister of State mean we are talking about incineration of this product in Ireland if that should arise in the future?

I did not mean that to be the interpretation and that is certainly not the case. Some of this meat and bonemeal has also been exported by the rendering companies to landfill sites in the North of Ireland. There is no domestic provision for the disposal because of the nature of the operation.

Grant Payments.

Ceisteanna (20)

James Breen

Ceist:

89 Mr. J. Breen asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if oral hearings will be set up to deal with appeals under the force majeure clause for farmers who fail in their written submissions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5110/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (4 píosaí cainte)

As of now, under the single payment scheme, some 136,000 farmers will qualify for payment of €1.3 billion annually out of the national envelope. The Department is processing applications from 14,000 farmers who have requested that force majeure — exceptional circumstances be taken into consideration so that they too may be allocated single payment entitlement or at a higher level than that which they currently qualify for from the €1.3 billion envelope. Any person dissatisfied with the decision of the Department on force majeure — exceptional circumstances in their case will have the right to appeal.

Where following the application of force majeure — exceptional circumstances the sum of entitlements for all farmers exceeds the national envelope of €1.3 billion, a linear percentage reduction will have to be applied to all farmers. I am considering the appeals mechanism that can be put in place for those farmers. The primary objective in all these matters is to ensure fairness and impartiality leading to the smooth implementation of the single payment scheme in 2005.

I thank the Minister of State for his reply and wish him well in his quest for greener pastures in a few months' time. A mechanism needs to be put in place to help farmers who have been forced to retire prematurely through no fault of their own. They may now be denied payments and their written submissions may be refused. It is not too much to ask that there should be a system to afford them an oral hearing. I do not believe many will be turned down. Will the Minister of State ensure that every case is examined on its merits and sympathetically in some cases?

I assure the Deputy that this will be an open and transparent operation. The objective of the Department is to ensure that every person receives fair play. Like the Deputy, Members also meet varying cases at their weekly clinics and we are aware of the issue. The Minister has decided that an independent appeals committee will be established to process in a fair, comprehensive and efficient manner appeals on all aspects of the single payment regime.

A committee to be known as the single payment appeals committee will be established. This is a separate committee and will comprise four appeals officers attached to the agricultural office in Portlaoise and an independent chairperson. The committee will meet in Portlaoise initially. It is proposed that the committee should meet for one day a week commencing in mid-March, but this will be subject to review and it may have to expand during the summer due to the number of appeals that have been received by the Department.

At the outset, the appeals committee will examine cases of farmers whose applications for force majeure were unsuccessful. It will take into consideration the situation of farmers depending on the number of animals, area applied for during the reference period, or other circumstances such as bad health, illness or animal disease. The Department has already received more than 14,000 applications and the Deputy can appreciate the difficulty in processing all those. It is hoped that the initial decisions will be made in early March. I assure the Deputy that each individual applicant will receive the fullest consideration. I remind the Deputy that, whatever decisions might be made in that regard, there will be an adjustment under the €1.3 billion national package.

Question No. 90, which is a priority question, cannot be taken because the Deputy is not present.

Genetically Modified Organisms.

Ceisteanna (21)

Arthur Morgan

Ceist:

91 Mr. Morgan asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will make a statement on the implications which the opening up of the EU to genetically modified produce will have on agriculture here. [5302/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (6 píosaí cainte)

In Ireland responsibility for GM foods comes under the Minister for Health and Children while responsibility for the deliberate release of GM crops into the environment rests with the Environmental Protection Agency. The Department of Agriculture and Food is the competent authority relating to the cultivation of these crops.

As a result of consumer concerns within the EU about GM produce, there have been significant developments over the past two years in strengthening the controls governing the approval, cultivation and use of GM products. The legislation governing the assessment and approval procedures for GM crops, food and feed will ensure that the highest standards are in place to protect the citizens of the Community from a food safety and environmental aspect. New legislation on labelling and traceability for all GM food and feed, which will apply from 18 April next, will ensure that consumers can continue to have choice and full confidence in the food supply chain.

In addition to this legislation, which was jointly adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, the Community has also established the European Food Safety Authority which provides the citizens of the EU with an independent scientific body in which they can have the utmost confidence and trust with regard to the assessment, advice and communication of any risk associated with GM foods or any food safety matter.

To establish the appropriate measures necessary for Irish farming practices and farming conditions, I have established an interdepartmental and inter-agency working group with the task of identifying and evaluating the issues and implications for crop production in Ireland that would arise from the cultivation of GM crops, and developing proposals for a national strategy and best practices to ensure the co-existence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming.

The combination of these measures is aimed at ensuring the GM crops cultivated have been subjected to the most rigorous scientific testing available within the EU before approval; obliging farmers who wish to cultivate GM crops to do so under strict conditions which will not affect the farming practices of their neighbours; and ensuring that the consumer will have choice of GM or non-GM products.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht an fhreagra sin. I am a little amazed at that answer. It is like closing the door when the horse has bolted. Does the Minister agree that the image this island enjoys internationally as a source of high quality food produce will be endangered if the EU member states continue to introduce genetically modified food products? Does he also agree that Irish officials voting in favour of the introduction of GM products, as they have done twice in recent months, is against the long-term interests of Irish farming and the food processing industry?

We ought to develop the full potential of Irish agriculture to produce high quality produce, and this includes the organic sector. We should stay away from GM products and this is possible for an island nation. That is where the strength and the future of Irish agriculture should be. There is proposed legislation to protect the consumer. Given that the EU has already voted, with the support of Irish officials, to introduce genetic modification, that legislation would seem to be too late.

In response to Deputy Morgan, a substantial amount of farm feed entering the Community consists of GM crops such as soya. There is a moratorium on the cultivation of GM crops within the European Union. In the past two years, a series of legislative measures have been introduced to address concerns of consumers and citizens of the EU. This is rigorous legislation which has been adopted not alone by the EU Council of Ministers but also by co-decision with the European Parliament. The measures, which are binding rather than optional across all member states, set out rules governing the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment. The GM food and feed regulation, No. 1829 of 2003, sets out the authorisation procedure for labelling and traceability of genetically modified foods and feed. A range of regulations and protocols protects consumers and ensures that they know where they stand.

Deputy Morgan also referred to the sweetcorn maize product, Bt-11. When the product was considered by a regulatory committee, Ireland voted in favour of it. There is a long way to go before a final decision is taken on the matter, which is due to come before EU Ministers at a meeting of the Health Council, the Environment Council or the Agriculture Council. That decision has not yet been taken and the Commission has not yet made a proposal in that regard.

Of course the regulation will be binding across every member state. My problem is that our officials are supporting and voting in favour of the introduction of such measures, rather than opposing them. Regardless of the many safety aspects of genetic modification, does the Minister agree that there is no economic argument in favour of introducing genetic modification, other than assisting large corporations to further monopolise the market? Irish farming and food production will be much better served if we ensure that genetic modification is not introduced on this island. Our officials should be told that any voting power we have at EU level should be directed in opposition to the introduction of genetic modification.

The approach to genetic modification taken in this country is generally conservative and cautious. The report of the interdepartmental group on modern biotechnology, which was produced in October 2000, established the Government's precautionary position on biotechnology. This position was based on the undoubted potential of biotechnology in the fields of medicine and health. A considerable proportion of the animal feed, particularly soya, imported into this country is genetically modified, but we are extremely careful. We have supported various measures and regulations that have been introduced in respect of labelling and the development of GMs, generally, within the European Union. Our attitude is that the marketing of GM products should be allowed within the community only in exceptional circumstances. Our attitude to cultivation is even more conservative. It has rightly been pointed out that we have a positive image as a food-producing country and we want to retain it. There is a role for biotechnology, however, especially in the field of medicine and we think it should be cautiously allowed to develop.

Deputy Hayes was not present when his Priority Question No. 90 was called. As the Deputy has now arrived in the House before the conclusion of Priority Question Time, I will allow him to ask his question.

Milk Quota.

Ceisteanna (22)

Tom Hayes

Ceist:

90 Mr. Hayes asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he has any proposals to include the 7.1 million gallons of milk quota, received under Agenda 2000, for decoupled payments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5108/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (5 píosaí cainte)

I am happy to facilitate Deputy Hayes in this regard. The total compensation available to Ireland under the dairy cow premium and national envelope is based on the level of the national milk quota in the base year 1999-2000. Ireland's quota includes an additional 32 million gallons, or 150,000 tonnes, which was negotiated under Agenda 2000 and has been allocated to the various categories. As Ireland was allowed to allocate this quota from the earliest date, the cumulative level of individual quotas needs to be adjusted to the level of the overall quota before the 2000 allocation, in the base year 1999-2000, for the purpose of calculating the dairy premium. I am considering the most equitable way of achieving this adjustment, while taking account of the status of producers who received allocations from the Agenda 2000 quota. I hope to make a decision on the matter in the near future.

I thank the Minister for his reply and I thank the Chair for allowing this important question to be answered. Will the Minister take into account the views of those who have campaigned long and hard for an extra quota, many of whom are genuinely committed to the future of rural Ireland and family farms?

We were fortunate to receive the additional allocation of milk because it tidied up a number of difficult cases, some of which had lasted for years, as the Deputy said. The regulations will not allow the dairy cow premium to extend to that additional milk. The 7.1 million gallons of milk quota, which were mentioned by the Deputy, extend only to quotas established before 2000. The vast bulk of our quota will qualify, however. The relatively small amount of 150,000 tonnes, of a total of 5,250,000 tonnes, will not qualify. We would prefer if the dairy cow premium was attached to it, but the detailed rules will not allow that.

I understand what the Minister is saying and where he is coming from in his response. In view of the fact that a small number of people, most of whom are young or development farmers, is affected, is it possible that a special case could again be made? I appreciate that the Minister understands the problem — I have no difficulty with that — but will he try to find another way to facilitate those who are affected by it, in conjunction with the Commission or whoever is responsible for it?

Senior officials of the Department of Agriculture and Food have been in Brussels in recent weeks teasing out various details of the mid-term review with representatives of the European Commission. I said that we hope to get the final text in about four weeks. Many issues, such as the availability of land, are under examination. Will those who have to lease land on quota during the reference period have to continue to lease that land into the future? We are making progress in a number of such critical areas and it is important that we continue to do so because the mid-term review of reform of the CAP will be in place for the next ten or 12 years. We want to ensure that we achieve the most favourable outcome possible from the negotiations. I have the utmost confidence that the departmental officials in Brussels will get the best possible deal from the Commission.

Barr
Roinn