Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 8 March 2007
1 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the steps she will take to ensure farmers have the maximum available information on the implementation of cross-compliance measures; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [9211/07]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe introduction of the single payment scheme, involving the move to a decoupled system in Ireland, and the linkage to cross-compliance requirements set down in EU legislation and dealing with the environment, public, animal and plant health and animal welfare was a major challenge both for farmers and my Department. The need to provide detailed information for farmers and to engage in consultation with the farm bodies on the wide-ranging changes inherent in the single payment scheme was recognised at an early stage. A number of information guides and consultation papers on various issues were prepared and distributed to farmers in the last three years. These were augmented by a series of countrywide information meetings for farmers that were delivered by my Department and Teagasc during the latter half of 2004 and again in 2005. My Department also hosted seminars on the single payment scheme at events such as the national ploughing championships at which there were large farming audiences.
Specifically on cross-compliance, my Department published two separate booklets in 2005 and 2006 which were sent to every farmer in the country. These dealt with the 18 statutory management requirements, SMRs, on good agricultural and environmental conditions under cross-compliance. A separate information booklet dealing with the nitrates element of cross-compliance issued to all farmers during November 2006. This was followed by a further series of countrywide information seminars for farmers.
The regulations governing the single payment scheme provide for a farm advisory system that can advise farmers on the various cross-compliance requirements to be available in member states. Ireland already has in place a well developed farm advisory service through Teagasc and private consultancies. These channels can be of major help to farmers in ensuring understanding and observance of the cross-compliance rules. My Department is currently arranging information meetings for Teagasc and private agricultural consultants, with particular emphasis on cross-compliance with a view to updating them on the various SMRs on good agricultural and environmental conditions.
I am very conscious of the concerns of farmers regarding cross-compliance and the risk of incurring financial penalties in their direct payments. This is an issue not only for Irish farmers and my Department, it is also high on the agenda of farmers and administrations in several member states. I have raised my concerns — particularly those relating to the inspection arrangements and the need for advance notice — with Commissioner Fischer Boel on a number of occasions both in person and in formal communication. I have also discussed the problems with Minister Seehofer, the German President of the Agriculture Council, and I am most heartened by his commitment to deal with the issues which are high on the agenda of the Presidency. I took the opportunity when in Paris last weekend to attend the International Agriculture Show to meet my German and French counterparts and impress on them the need to lessen the burden of bureaucracy on farmers in the simplification process now under way.
The Commission is at an advanced stage in finalising a review document on cross-compliance. I expect this to be cleared through the Commission before the end of March and it will then go to the Agriculture Council for discussion in April. With the commitment of the Presidency to progressing the dossier speedily, I hope that changes can be agreed in time to apply to the 2007 inspection arrangements.
In conjunction with this, my Department is carrying out a full review of the inspection arrangements and checklists for the single payment scheme with a view to simplification of the arrangements, including paperwork, where possible, while ensuring compliance with the regulatory requirements. The inspection checklists are documents for completion by my Department's inspectors and not by farmers. The review of inspection report forms, together with the outcome of the Commission's review of the cross-compliance arrangements generally, will be fully discussed with the farming organisations before the single payments inspections for 2007 get under way.
What is the position regarding the introduction of 14-day notices to farmers regarding inspections? As the Minister is aware, the vast majority of problems that have arisen in respect of cross-compliance inspections relate to the paperwork involved, identification, lost tags etc. The latter will not have any real impact in the context of 14-day notices. Will the Minister ensure the introduction of such notices comes to pass?
The Minister is planning to establish the farm advisory system through private consultancies and Teagasc. As she is aware, this system will not cover all farmers, particularly those who are restricted under the regulations relating to cross-compliance. Why is it that farmers are only now obtaining further briefings in respect of this matter? Should such briefings have been provided at an earlier stage? Is it not the case that the new system was supposed to have been up and running from 1 January 2007? Is it not hypocritical of the Minister to be anxious to implement rules and regulations that directly impact on farmers while dragging her heels in respect of providing then with information?
I completely refute the Deputy's assertion. It is obvious he was not listening to——
I listened intently.
The Deputy did not do so. I informed him that people received information in 2004 to 2006, inclusive. Teagasc, with which 99.9% of farmers are in contact, and the private consultants are providing the advisory service. It is hypocritical of the Deputy to suggest that we have not contacted, consulted or informed farmers. As stated earlier, I hope that, on foot of the consultations taking place, changes to the cross-compliance regime will be introduced this year. There is no doubt that further information will be made available to farmers.
It is important to place on record what is happening with regard to inspections. In 2004, there were 18,000 on-farm inspections. In 2006, the number fell to 7,500. This represents a reduction of 58%. In 2004, 6,493 farmers were penalised for breaches of the rules on identification and registration of bovine animals. In 2006, 1,163 farmers were so penalised. The latter represents a reduction of 82%. There has, as promised, been a massive reduction in the number of inspections carried out under this regime. The most striking statistic is that one third of the farms inspected in 2004 had problems with identification and registration and a similar number of farms visited in 2006 had the same problem. The real difficulties relate to identification and they have been with us for a considerable period. In my opinion, our energies would be best spent dealing with the issue of identification as opposed to engaging in pontification. That is where I see the solution to dealing with this issue.
On the issue of the 14 days' notice, as I have indicated it is my intention to spearhead the provision of advance notice. I agree that there is no need in a decoupled period for there to be no notification. That is part of my agenda and that of the Presidency. As I indicated, this matter is now with the Commission. I have had, and am gaining, much support for what we want to achieve.
For the information of Deputy Naughten, Standing Orders provides six minutes for a Priority Question. There are four more questions to be dealt with. I will allow a brief supplementary.
The difficulty was with the Minister's initial reply, not with the supplementaries.
I accept the point the Minister made about identification. In that regard, she might have a word with the Taoiseach because he seems to have a problem with it.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, given that she gave a commitment that the Department checklist would be issued to farmers, when will it be issued to them? Second, the definition of soiled water dating from July 2004 was subsequently changed in December last. When were the agricultural advisers around the country informed in detail of the impact of the change?
Deputy Naughten's little quip is not acceptable and I will tell him why. Perhaps he should have read the contents of the article to see where there is real support for farming on the ground, rather than make snide remarks across the House.
The farmers know that.
The farmers know the reality.
Minister, I am anxious to move to Question No. 2.
This might be our last time for parliamentary questions. It is a good time to provide a round-up and show our position on agriculture, food and forestry. We are on this side at present——
We do not want to abuse Standing Orders.
——and, hopefully, we will continue to be.
It was the Minister, not me, who brought up the issue of identification.
On the issue of inspections, I have indicated that we are involved in a period of consultation with the farming organisations. I have appointed Dr. Cawley to oversee that. It is working well in preparation for the 2007 inspections. Once that has been completed and the outcomes of the European discussions are available, then we will revise the document and can proceed from there.
It is my intention to pursue vigorously the issue of simplification. I have written and spoken to many on this issue. We held a discussion here with the representatives at secretary level as recently as this week. We will be pursuing that further. It is my intention to ensure that the outcome of the European discussions will be reflected in the new document. There is no point in producing a document now and having to revise it in a couple of weeks.
I take it they have never been informed on the soiled water issue.
All I would say about soiled water is that this was raised in the House before Christmas. People are acutely aware of the definitions. It has been made available within the statutory instrument and at the information meetings. Therefore, there is no difficulty on what are the definitions of soiled water or slurry.
They have not been informed.
They have been informed. What Deputy Naughten is trying to say to me is that——
Minister, could I discourage you from engaging with the Deputy across the floor?
——people in Teagasc and in the private sector do not read the farming news in the newspapers.
It is the Minister's responsibility to inform, not anyone else's.
That has been made available in a press release in December last.
There is no point in keeping some of it behind closed doors.
We are being unfair to Deputy Upton.
Deputy Naughten is factually incorrect. A press release was made available in which people were informed of exactly what has happened.
A press release.
It then went to Teagasc and the relevant authorities. The decision has been made.
By law, since 1 January last they are supposed to have all of the information and the Minister has not provided it to them.
It is all there. Perhaps Deputy Naughten does not want to know about it.
Could we proceed to Question No. 2? Deputy Naughten, please. We are being unfair to Deputy Upton.
