Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 23: To ask the Minister for Agriculture and Food her plans for cross-compliance under the single farm payment; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [17441/05]

Mary Coughlan (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Farmers receiving direct aid are required under the single payment scheme to respect the various statutory management requirements set down in EU legislation on the environment, food safety, animal health and welfare, and plant health, and to maintain the farm in good agricultural and environmental condition. Member states are obliged to ensure that there is no significant reduction in the amount of land under permanent pasture by reference to the total area under permanent pasture in 2003. These requirements are termed "cross-compliance".

In addition to cross-compliance checks, it is a requirement to carry out standard eligibility checks to verify that the actual area claimed in the single payment application form corresponds with the area held by the farmer and to ensure that there are no overlapping or duplication of parcels claimed.

In general the rate of on-farm inspection required for cross-compliance under the single payment scheme is 1% of those farmers to whom the relevant statutory management requirement or good agricultural and environmental conditions apply. However, at least 5% of producers must be inspected under the animal identification and registration requirements as this level is prescribed under the relevant regulations.

In October 2004 the Department prepared a consultative document on cross-compliance and invited views from interested organisations. Department officials met the main farming organisations in December to discuss their submissions and these discussions have continued more recently in the context of the review of the protocol on direct payments.

An information booklet on cross-compliance has been issued to all farmers. It sets out the principal features of cross-compliance in terms of the standards that must be met by farmers and the control arrangements that will be necessary. To coincide with the issue of the booklet, a series of countrywide farmer information meetings organised by my Department in conjunction with Teagasc took place in early April. These meetings focused not only on cross-compliance but addressed the various other issues associated with the introduction of the single payment scheme.

The EU directives and regulations referred to in cross-compliance have been in place for many years. Producers are generally familiar with them and are complying with the standards set in implementing them in Ireland.

In implementing the single payment scheme, I am aiming to minimise the number of inspection visits and to move towards a position where, in most cases, all eligibility and cross-compliance checks will be carried out during a single farm visit. It is envisaged that the 22,000 or so inspections, which were carried out under the old regime, will be significantly reduced to 10,000 under the single payment scheme. This approach should minimise the level of inconvenience to farmers. However, in certain instances more than one inspection of a holding may be unavoidable.

Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will there be two separate sets of inspections? Will the total number amount to 5% or 6%? Will farmers know in advance under which category the inspection is being carried out or, depending on what the officials find on the farm, will they be slotted into either the cross-compliance category or the animal identification and registration category? In her response last month, the Minister stated that in some circumstances more than one inspection may be unavoidable. Will the Minister give an example of what she has in mind?

The information booklet published and circulated sets out the principal features of cross-compliance but the difficulty is in regard to the detail — many farmers are concerned that the devil is in the detail. In light of that and the suggested tolerance range in regard to tagging cattle, is it not discriminatory from the point of view that the less stock one has the higher the tolerance rate in respect of having stock not tagged? What are the implications for the sheep sector?

Mary Coughlan (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Under cross-compliance the rate of inspections is 1% but overall the inspection rate on animal identification and registration is 5%. We are trying to reduce the number of on-farm inspections to ensure there is only one farm visit and reduce the many difficulties that have arisen.

With my officials I have had talks with the farming organisations for a considerable period on cross-compliance. Perhaps there is a little skulduggery taking place — I am not pointing to the Deputy this time——

Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That makes a change.

Mary Coughlan (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——given the headlines people speak about in regard to dreaded inspections and so on. The bottom line is that the farming fraternity has been accustomed to inspections all its life and the majority of farmers have no problem with inspections. That will continue to be the case because they are working under the good farming practice which is almost equivalent to the new requirements.

The tolerances were introduced on the basis of the penalties imposed at the time. Penalties have been reduced but the tolerances will remain. If one has a smaller herd it should be easier to look after the number of cattle and the number of tags. There has been much consultation on that issue and it has not been signed off completely. I hope to have it signed off in a final discussion with the farming organisations next week and a decision by me after that. What we are looking at is consultation, practical application and inspections. People forget that we are reducing the number of inspections considerably. Many of the reasons penalties were imposed on people were not related to inspections but the way in which they filled in their application form. There were minor errors, for example, with the wrong number on a tag.

They do not have to do that now and retention periods are gone. I hope this will reduce the bureaucracy and some of the small things that happened.

A great deal of work has been done on inspections. I have had discussions with the Department on training for the inspectors. I do not see the devil in the detail. We are aiming at single inspections per farm but more may be required if difficulties are apparent. There will not be a significant change in the methodology of inspection. People will be supported. I will review the matter on an ongoing basis.