Priority Questions.
1 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the discussions he has had with Commissioner Byrne since January 2004 with respect to the EU’s draft proposals for the transport of live cattle; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9214/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraI have raised this matter with Commissioner Byrne on numerous occasions, the latest being on Monday last in Brussels. While I welcome in principle any proposal which improves the welfare of animals being transported, I have made it clear from the outset that any such proposal must also have regard to the right of operators in the livestock sector to avail of the benefits of the single European market. From an Irish perspective, I have indicated on a number of occasions that I regard the live trade as an essential market outlet for Irish farmers. This trade will only be sustainable in the long term on the basis of having the highest possible standards for the protection of animal welfare. Ultimately, this issue will have to be dealt with on a scientific rather than an emotional basis.
A number of elements of the Commission's original proposal, notably those relating to stocking densities, rest periods and unloading of animals, have the potential to adversely impact on the economics of the live trade from Ireland, while doing little to improve the welfare of animals being transported. Since the draft regulation was first published during the Italian Presidency and with the benefit of having met all the stakeholder groups at national level and discussed their concerns, both my officials and I have clearly articulated Ireland's views on these elements at Council and working party level in the EU.
Under Ireland's Presidency, I am pleased that progress is being made on a compromise proposal. Ultimately, it will be the Council of Ministers which will decide whether to accept or reject the Commission's proposed regulation. There are divergent views among member states on a number of aspects at present and it is clear that if agreement is to be reached before the end of Ireland's Presidency, compromise will be required on all sides. As President of the Agriculture Council, I will do my utmost to ensure that agreement is reached on a compromise which will address the legitimate concerns of those who are primarily exercised by the improvement of conditions for animals being transported, while ensuring that those engaged in live exports can continue to carry on their business in a manner which is economically viable.
Does the Minister agree it is imperative that farmers have an outlet through the live cattle trade to compete with factories? There is much concern about these proposals. The Minister stated he was concerned about the proposed stocking densities and rest times. Does he agree there is no scientific evidence in any of the draft proposals and that many of the proposals put forward have been scientifically refuted by Department scientists in Teagasc?
The Minister stated that he hoped to get agreement before the end of the Irish Presidency. Does he believe that agreement can be reached at the Council of Ministers summit in Killarney? Can he give us a guarantee that staging posts will continue to exist and that he will not accept any proposals which include their abolition? The staging posts are vital to the continuance of this industry which is worth several tens of millions of euro to farmers.
As regards shipping and the Pandoro difficulty, my understanding is that goods are being shipped in the same way as they were in the past, but there is no obligation on any shipping company to take live cattle. Will the Minister raise this issue at EU Commission level to ensure that shipping companies are not able to refuse to take certain freight? Could we consider introducing a condition when issuing licences to shipping companies that they must accept all freight, including live animal exports?
I accept the live trade is critically important to Ireland for a number of reasons, principally because of its economic value. Younger cattle are transported to EU countries where they are raised and fed before going to consumer outlets. It generates competition with the factories, as outlined by Deputy Timmins. Since I became Minister, my officials and I have worked assiduously to ensure a vibrant live trade, including the approval of various ferries for the transportation of animals. We also ensure that animals are inspected before travel, that they are fit to travel and that the conditions of travel, such as seaworthiness, are appropriate. We have a good record in terms of the welfare of transported animals and we intend to continue that.
As regards the likely date of finalisation, I hope this matter will come for resolution in the final week of April at the Council of Ministers' meeting. I am confident we will find a resolution which will respect animal welfare and allow the traditional live trade to continue.
As regards Pandoro, the injunction was lifted in the court a few weeks ago. However, a substantive issue still remains before the court, namely, the issue of damages. In the contacts my Department has had with the Pandoro company, we have not been given any indication that it will stop the trade. In other words, we believe it will continue. That is extremely important. We are keeping in contact with the company in that regard. Other commercial companies have been in touch with the Department seeking approval for possible ferries. We are ready to give approval to appropriate vessels because we exported 221,000 head of cattle last year and we want that to continue. My policy and the policy of the Department is to ensure that happens.
Will the Minister indicate how many other countries in the EU agree with the Irish view on the draft transport proposals?
A number of countries have strong views on journey times. My attitude is that a scientific approach, having regard to high standards of animal welfare, might have little to do with journey times. Where sea-going vessels are concerned, for example, a short journey time in a gale force wind will cause more trouble than good sea travelling conditions over a longer period. This matter must be dealt with on a scientific rather than emotional basis.
2 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the steps he intends to take during the Irish Presidency of the EU, in his role as chairman of the Council of Agriculture Ministers, to ensure that the standards of food production and traceability in accession countries are comparable with those enforced in other EU states; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9217/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraNegotiations on the conditions of entry into the European Union for the ten candidate countries were completed some time ago. These conditions are set out in the treaties of accession signed with the candidate countries. With effect from 1 May 2004, the ten accession countries, comprising Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, will become member states of the European Union and, as such, may, subject to meeting appropriate standards, trade with the other member states of the EU without the requirement for border controls for the purposes of animal and public health.
The standards with regard to trade are contained within Community legislation providing for health and safety controls on production and on intra-Community trade in animals, animal and plant products and foods. These controls apply in particular to the structure of and hygiene in establishments and the control and the health marking of the products.
It has been a key element of the enlargement negotiations in the agriculture sector that the candidate countries transpose the EU's veterinary legislation into their national legislation and undertake its full and effective implementation from the date of accession. The objective has been to ensure that enlargement does not result in a dilution of existing EU levels of public health, food safety, animal health and animal welfare. Furthermore, candidate countries have been required to ensure that their external borders satisfy the levels of controls required within the EU and that full and effective enforcement of the internal market control systems takes place from the day of accession.
The Food Safety Authority recently raised the important issue of ensuring that standards are in force and are applied. While I welcome the accession countries, and there will be many benefits from their accession, there are food safety concerns which, despite what the Minister has said, need to be taken on board and rigorously addressed. Has laboratory accreditation been taken account of in the accession countries in the same way as laboratories are accredited in this country to monitor food in particular? Do the same standards of accreditation apply in those countries as would apply here?
Yes, the food and veterinary office of the Commission monitors the implementation of controls in the accession states. It has a number of missions in each of the accession states examining their laboratories, food establishments, plants and so forth. They must make progress reports on a regular basis. I was talking to representatives of a number of the accession states this week in Brussels and they spoke about the rigorous inspections carried out by the food and veterinary office personnel. In most cases, they have not yet been given a clean bill of health. I continue to make the point, as I did this week, that there will be no dilution of standards. Unquestionably, accession states will have to measure up to the existing standards.
There are issues of concern with regard to traceability, even where it would appear that there are rigorous standards in place for traceability. As time moves on, we realise that these are either not enforced or not enforceable. Will the Minister comment on traceability and the origins of food products from the accession countries? How can we guarantee that the same level of traceability will apply in those countries as we expect to apply in Ireland?
I accept the Deputy's point about traceability. Consumers want to know the content and ingredients of the product they purchase and they want the labelling to be accurate. They also want to know the traceability of the product, that is, where it has come from and the ingredients fed to the livestock if it is a livestock product. The accession countries will have to measure up and adhere to those standards of traceability in the same way as existing member states.
3 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will initiate a debate on public views concerning genetically modified food and, in so doing, articulate Government actions and policy to date on this issue, including the requirement and size of buffer zones, in view of the Government belief in co-existence between genetically modified and conventional crops. [9377/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraOver the past two years, there has been a significant amount of discussion in the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament on legislation dealing with GMOs. This has lead to the adoption through the co-decision procedure of wide-ranging legislative measures which seek to ensure that the most stringent assessment and control procedures for the cultivation and use of GM crops and GM food are applied within the EU. These measures will ensure that the highest standards of food safety and environmental protection will apply equally across the Community. The exercise of these controls is supported by the establishment of the European Food Safety Authority which makes available to the citizens of the EU 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 GMs or any food safety matter.
With regard to the co-existence of GM crops alongside non-GM crops, the Commission, in conjunction with the European Parliament and Council, decided that controls in this area should be addressed at member state level under a series of guidelines. As a result, all member states, including Ireland, are in the process of drawing up strategies and best practices to enable the effective co-existence of GM crops with non-GM crops. To establish the appropriate measures necessary for Irish farming practices and farming conditions, an interdepartmental-interagency working group has been established by my Department and has been given 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 of developing proposals for a national strategy and best practices to ensure the co-existence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming.
The group is examining the many aspects of this process, such as adequate distances, buffers, liability, prior notification and so forth. As part of its work programme, it proposes to have discussions with relevant stakeholders in the preparation of its recommendations on the strategies and best practices for coexistence.
The highest standard would be to have no GM food but that is not what the Minister means when he refers to the highest standards in protecting conventional and organic farmers from GM food. The Minister referred to the national strategy. Will that strategy include a national debate on GMOs, as happened in the UK? Does the Minister have a view on the debate that took place in the UK on GM food? We have not yet had a debate here, so will the Minister kick-start that debate?
Ireland was one of only six EU states to vote for authorisation of Bt11 GM maize. When will the Government produce a response to the question I asked about buffer zones? In Austria, 11% organic means the buffer zones are widespread and, accordingly, small amounts of GMOs can be grown. Is the Minister aware that no insurance company, to my knowledge, will insure a conventional or an organic farmer against GM contamination? What is his response to conventional and organic farmers on that point? Will he collaborate with the Northern Ireland authorities about the all-Ireland situation, given that GM production does not respect borders? As the Minister spoke about a national strategy, would he be in favour of appointing representatives of consumers and NGOs to, for example, Food Safety Authority and EPA committees dealing with GMOs so there can be full consultation?
Regarding GMOs generally, much useful debate has taken place and is taking place throughout the country, particularly since the publication of the report of the interdepartmental group on modern biotechnology by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment in October 2000 which established the Government's positive but precautionary position on biotechnology. I am liaising with the UK authorities regarding GMOs and keeping abreast of developments in the interdepartmental working group on GMOs which is chaired by an officer of the Department of Agriculture and Food and comprises representatives of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the EPA, Teagasc and various sectoral divisions of the Department of Agriculture and Food and is, therefore, widely representative of interested parties. Bodies such as the EPA and Teagasc include a range of interested people, including consumers, to give best advice to Government. I am not yet in a position to say what the situation is likely to be regarding buffer zones and some other issues the Deputy raised. I await the outcome of the working group's study which I hope to have fairly shortly. This will inform me of the best approach to take regarding the technical matters the Deputy raised.
The Minister gives no timeframe. He is awaiting an outcome. Is it not the case that the European Commission has specified a period within which the Council of Ministers must produce an outcome regarding, for example, genetically-modified maize? Will that be dealt with by the Council of Agriculture Ministers or by the Council of Environment Ministers? I understand that matter had not been decided. Perhaps there has been a decision on it.
The question of insurance, to which the Minister did not refer, is a very valid one. However, both conventional and organic growers and farmers are very concerned about the lack of insurance cover in case of GM contamination. Has the Department anything to say to those farmers?
A period of time has been specified, as the Deputy suggested. It is three months.
Is it from January?
No, it takes us up to May. I inquired about it during the week and was told it was still in progress. When the procedure is complete I will receive a communication regarding whether it will go before the Council of Environment Ministers or the Council of Agriculture Ministers. That stage has not yet been reached.
Insurance is a commercial matter. In a range of areas relating to agriculture, animal diseases, mud slides and so on, I would very much like insurance cover to be in place for the farming community and producers. It would take much pressure off the Department of Agriculture and Food. Similarly, in the case of GM crops, I would like insurance companies to take a more positive approach.
4 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the discussions his Department has had with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government with respect to the draft nitrates directive; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9216/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe implementation of the nitrates directive is, in the first instance, a matter for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. My officials engaged in discussions over the past few years with officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on further implementation of the nitrates directive, which is a legal obligation.
A draft action programme prepared by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in conjunction with my Department and in consultation with Teagasc, was presented in December last to representatives of the main farming organisations and other stakeholders.
Written submissions on the draft action programme have been received from some 70 stakeholders. I am giving consideration to the issues raised in the submissions in consultation with my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, having regard to the need to finalise the terms of the action programme at an early date and submit definitive proposals to the European Commission.
The draft action programme was also discussed at a meeting between officials of the two Departments and the farming pillar under Sustaining Progress. The two Departments will be in contact with the farming organisations again in due course.
In proceeding with an action programme the two Departments must also have regard to the outcome of the recent decision of the Court of Justice on the implementation of the directive. The plan must, therefore, have the following fundamental aims: minimise the disruption to farmers observing good farming practice; protect all CAP support payments — the Commission has indicated that the continuation of such payments is contingent upon an acceptable action plan being put in place; and avoid further court proceedings by the European Commission. Compliance with the directive has also been specified as one of the conditions for farmers' participation in the single payment scheme following the decoupling of farm supports from production.
I am anxious, therefore, that definite proposals be agreed and submitted to the European Commission in the near future.
Is the Minister saying that if we do not have agreement by January next the single farm payment will not be paid? That gives rise to another worry in respect of many cross-compliance measures. Will we be constantly facing a similar threat in the years ahead if we do not achieve them? We are all striving to ensure that our water is protected. We are also striving to ensure that no unnecessary hardship or burden is placed on farmers. Does the Minister have a bottom line on what will protect the water and be acceptable to farm organisations and, more important, to the EU?
I am delighted the Minister is consulting with the various organisations on the nitrates directive in accordance with the partnership agreement.
The nitrates directive is a 1991 directive. Nobody can take much credit given that we have vacillated for so long. We have missed an opportunity of being allowed to go to 210 kg N and are now in a situation where, as a general rule, we can go to 170 kg N. Had we addressed the 1991 directive in the mid-1990s we would have had a four-year transitionary period beginning with 210 kg N. That opportunity is gone. A court decision has been taken and we are given another couple of months to address this matter and submit an action programme. That action programme is important. I do not believe farmers have a great deal to fear because most of them are already adhering to good farming practice. It is my intention to seek the maximum possible derogation from the 170 kg N. As I have stated before, we have given a commitment in Government that we will seek up to 250 kg N. In a number of other countries consideration has been given to allowing 210 kg N or 230 kg N. With good farming practice it is possible to have highly intensive commercial farming and still adhere to those requirements.
There are other requirements, such as storage capacity and the spreading of organic manure during certain times. These are fairly restrictive. I would like to see a number of concessions in those areas as well. However, local authority regulations and planning conditions already apply.
We have high standards in farming in Ireland. We have improving water quality. I hope and expect that with good sense prevailing the discussions which will take place between the stakeholders, the farming organisations, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Department of Agriculture and Food will lead us to submit an appropriate action plan to Brussels which will be accepted and which will allow commercial farming to continue in Ireland.
On the previous day I made a brief reference to the concept of the nitrogen vulnerable zones and the Minister indicated that he would not consider that. Has he considered it since or is it completely off the drawing board, so to speak? Perhaps I misheard the Minister but did he indicate that at this stage the 170 kgs level is a fait accompli in certain cases?
The 170 kgs is in the directive as a general guideline but there is every reason to believe we will get a higher level because in other countries consideration is being given to 210 kgs and 230 kgs at the very least.
On the cross-compliance which the Deputy mentioned earlier, a number of our schemes are vulnerable. There was a hold-up in some schemes last year because of our tardiness in responding to the nitrates directive. These schemes are extremely valuable to the country. Approximately €1.6 billion is spent each year in direct payments to farmers and we do not want to jeopardise that type of value to the farming community. The time has now come to address the nitrates directive, submit our action plan and get the maximum derogation consistent with good farming practice and with ensuring we retain good environmental practices and water quality.
What about the nitrogen vulnerable zones?
We have decided on a whole territory approach in that area.
All-island.
5 Mr. McHugh asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the measures he proposes to take to assist farmers financially in providing facilities to comply with the proposed nitrates directive in the event of the directive being implemented; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9396/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraSubstantial financial aid is being made available to farmers to facilitate compliance with the nitrates directive. In Sustaining Progress, the Government stated: "Recognising the importance of the nitrates directive and its impact on certain farmers, a number of initiatives shall be taken in the context of optimising the use of available EU and national budgetary resources". These initiatives included a review of REPS with higher payment rates, and changes to the terms and conditions of the farm waste management scheme and the dairy hygiene scheme, in particular increasing the income and eligible investment ceilings.
Proposals for REPS III, for example, included an average 28% increase in payments. They were forwarded to the European Commission for approval in early December last. We hope to get a decision fairly shortly on that but it is a matter for the Commission. I am keeping up the maximum pressure on it but the process going through the Commission is very slow. We have provided funding of €260 million, an increase of €70 million on last year which represents a 40% increase. That has been provided for REPS III in my Department's Estimates for 2004.
Earlier this year I secured approval from the EU to proceed with substantial improvements to both the farm waste management and the dairy hygiene schemes, with effect from January of this year. The allocations were increased by 58% and 67% respectively. That was to facilitate farmers in complying with storage facilities and the implications of the nitrates directive. The allocations were increased substantially and the new schemes incorporate a number of major changes. For example, the ceiling for eligibility under the schemes has been raised from 200 to 450 income units. This change will mean that the vast majority of farmers will now be able to avail of grant aid. The investment ceilings have also been raised from €50,000 to €75,000 in the case of farm waste management works, and from €31,000 to €50,000 in the case of dairy hygiene works.
Furthermore, a standard grant rate of 40% will now apply, twice that which was available to many farmers previously. In addition, increases have been applied to the standard costings used to calculate grant aid. Funding of €33.5 million is available for these schemes in my Department's 2004 Estimates as compared with €21.1 million in the 2003 Estimates. The young farmer installation aid was increased by 180%.
I thank the Minister for the reply but it gives no comfort to farmers who are already on a shoestring and who will now be required to borrow further to meet the proposals contained in the draft nitrates action programme. Will the Minister agree that the dates proposed for the prohibition on the application of fertilisers to lands do not take account of the Irish climate? It appears the dates are proposed willy-nilly and are merely put into the draft action programme to satisfy the appetite of bureaucrats somewhere. In implementing EU directives account needs to be taken of Irish conditions, and the peculiar situation relating to Ireland's climate is not taken into account in this instance. For example, the draft action programme proposes that no manure or slurry be spread on lands from 1 October to 15 January but we often get good weather in those months while in July we could have downpours. Strict dates will also have the effect of opening the sluice gates on one specific day, and that is not a good idea.
The draft programme further requires minimal animal manure storage and in the case of the west, which I am concerned about, the minimal storage requirement is 20 weeks. Will the Minister agree that this requirement, which is up to 24 weeks in the north-west and 20 weeks in the west, is unaffordable and the cost cannot be met by farmers under their present income? In the knowledge that an unbearable financial burden will be imposed on farmers, will the Minister look again at this matter with a view to changing the measures contained in the draft programme or else make sure that adequate financial assistance is made available in the event of those stringent measures being imposed on Irish farmers?
I reiterate that substantial and generous grant aid has been available, and I like the Deputy's idea of a shoestring. A total of €260 million has been allocated to the REPS. That is a 40% increase, and the rates of REPS have been increased by 28%. The farm waste management scheme payments have been increased by 58%, the dairy hygiene scheme payments by 67% and the young farmer installation aid scheme payments by 180%. That is very generous and takes into account the additional commitments needed under the nitrates directive. Section 21 of the Finance Bill extends the special scheme of capital allowances for expenditure incurred on the construction of facilities for pollution control, subject to the enactment of the necessary legislation in the Finance Bill 2004. That has virtually gone through all the systems and is to be signed by the President.
The scheme also allows total expenditure on or after 6 April on necessary measures for farm pollution control to be written off as a tax allowance over seven years. This allowance is subject to a maximum write-off in any one year of €31,743. In all the circumstances, therefore, very generous improvements and concessions have been made to the farming community to make sure that good farming practice takes place.
Farmers signed up to good farming practice in 1996 and those storage periods and requirements for storage are contained in the Code of Good Agricultural Practice to Protect Waters from Pollution by Nitrates, a great booklet which was published in July 1996 — the Deputy might wish to read it in his leisure time. It was from the Department of the Environment. There is a nice mugshot of——
The Wexford twins.
Yes, Deputy Howlin and the former Minister, Ivan Yates, both of whom are from Wexford.
The Minister is missing the point of my question. I am talking about a proposed action programme which has not yet come into being. The Minister cannot have made financial provision for that programme when it is not yet in place. If the measures remain as stringent as they are proposed, will the Minister make financial assistance available to farmers to help them implement those measures?
In line with good planning and practice by me in the Department we introduced those improvements in anticipation of the nitrates directive coming into effect.
The Minister would want to visit the farms in the west and see the storage facilities.
