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

Question 108: To ask the Minister for Agriculture and Food the steps she is taking to address the burden of cross-compliance; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [33026/06]

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

Cross-compliance involves two key elements, namely, a requirement for farmers to comply with 18 statutory management requirements set down in EU legislation on the environment, food safety, animal health and welfare and plant health, and a requirement to maintain farms in good agricultural and environmental conditions. If an applicant is found to be non-compliant, sanctions provided for in the governing EU regulations will be applied to the applicant's single payment.

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

Guides to cross-compliance were issued to all farmers by my Department in early 2005 and August 2006. They detailed the cross-compliance requirements under the various EU regulations and gave information on inspection controls on farms. Wide-ranging consultation with the farm bodies has taken place and procedures are clearly set out in the charter of rights for farmers.

My Department has adopted a weighting system within the cross-compliance inspection regime whereby due account must be taken of infringements of the requirements that are inadvertent and minor in nature, do not result from the negligence of the farmer and are capable of occurring in practical farming situations. In such circumstances, a certain level of tolerance is applied while the farmer is notified of the infringement.

In implementing the single payment scheme, my Department's policy is to minimise the number of inspection visits and move towards a situation where, in most cases, all eligibility and cross-compliance checks will be carried out during a single farm visit. My Department is committed to ensuring the maximum level of integration of inspections across all areas, including inspections under the disadvantaged areas scheme. On this basis, my Department estimates that more than 8,000 farmers will be inspected annually under the single payment scheme, representing more than a 50% reduction in the number of inspections compared to the old coupled regime.

My Department is in regular contact with the EU Commission concerning the need for further simplification with particular reference to advance notice of inspections and tolerances. The initiative recently launched by the Commission on simplification of the Common Agricultural Policy provides the opportunity for a fresh look at cross-compliance and other single payment scheme issues. I will certainly press for this.

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

When we made the decision to decouple the single farm payment, the then Minister, Deputy Walsh, stated that it would allow farmers the freedom to farm. The reality is that there is more bureaucracy in farming now than ever before.

The current Minister stated that in practical terms, farmers would be given up to 48 hours notice, but the reality on the ground is that farmers undergo on-the-spot inspections without any notification. In light of the fact that the majority of penalties relate to paperwork and the majority of farmers are part-time, is it not irresponsible of the Department not to give farmers notice to ensure that they have the documentation in place?

Some 95% of all cross-compliance failures are due to problems with the computerised monitoring and movement system, CMMS. What can the Department do to rectify this? It is one matter for farmers to fail purely for agricultural reasons — I accept the conditions laid down in that respect — but it is another matter for them to fail due to the current level of bureaucracy. What will the Minister do to address this issue?

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

It is important to state that a comparative analysis of the decoupled and the coupled payment schemes shows that in 2004 there were 18,000 inspections and in 2006 there will be eight. That is a significant reduction in inspections.

On the basis of an appreciation, Deputy Naughten is correct in stating that there are more part-time farmers, which of itself can impose difficulties, and I appreciate and fully recognise that problem. That is why I have been pursuing vociferously over recent years the need for simplification, an issue which was discussed with the Commissioner on a recent visit here and on which I am putting forward a number of proposals to her. However, I and members of my Department have spent an inordinate amount of time considering a farmers' charter and what are called yellow card penalty points.

If one wants to make a comparison of the penalties, for example, in 2005 and this year the cost of penalties here amounted to €337,000 and only two farms were out of context when it came to good farming practice, whereas in Northern Ireland the cost of penalties was £3.5 million. Let us look at it realistically. One is comparing the Six Counties in Northern Ireland with the rest here. Comparative analysis shows there have been considerable changes. Equally, in the context of the yellow card or the system in place, we are taking into account some simple issues which can arise in normal farming practice.

There is not more bureaucracy. There are issues, for example with the CMMS, but most particularly the issue refers to the loss of tags and I included a tolerance within the scheme. I know Deputy Crawford agrees with me.

Seymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree it is outrageous.

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

There are issues in that regard coming from our part of the country on the movement of animals about which we must be careful to ensure there are no disease issues. We had grave concerns, as Deputy Crawford will be aware, about disease issues in County Fermanagh, for example, which would have significant implications for us in the Border counties.

What I am saying is the rate of inspection is 1%. There has been a considerable reduction in the number of inspections. There is 48-hour notice for inspection of particular parts of cross-compliance — there is on-the-spot inspection for others — on the basis that the money being provided under the single farm payment is European and Irish, but I will still continue to pursue the idea, which is appropriate on the basis of decoupling, of longer-term notice to farmers. Moreover, the tolerances exist and we will review them.

The European Commission, which has come here to inspect us, is not particularly enamoured with the methodology we use, but I am certainly on the side of the farmer when it comes to small, simple processes that can cause difficulties. There are tolerances and, as I indicated to the farming organisations, they are constantly reviewed.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We must move to the next question.

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

I expected a reaction on the other side of the House——

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

We will give the Minister our reaction.

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

——but it is not permitted.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are way over time.