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

Question 1: To ask the Minister for Agriculture and Food the steps she is taking to address the burden of inspections on farmers under the nitrates directive; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40724/06]

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

My Department, in the context of delivering the single payment scheme, is required under EU law to carry out on-the-spot inspections on a number of farms covering such issues as eligibility under the scheme, compliance with EU legislation in the areas of the environment, food safety, animal health and welfare and plant health, and ensuring the farm is maintained in good agricultural and environmental condition. A minimum of 5% of single payment scheme applicants are required to be inspected under the eligibility rule. Up to two thirds of these inspections are carried out without a farm visit and using the technique of remote sensing.

The rate of on-farm inspection required for cross-compliance is 1% of those farmers to whom the statutory management requirements, including the nitrates directive, or GAEC 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.

On-farm inspection is a requirement of the many schemes operated by my Department, including REPS, the early retirement scheme, the farm waste management scheme and other measures included in the €6.8 billion funding package recently agreed for the 2007-13 period. In carrying out the inspection function, my officials try to be reasonable while respecting the regulatory requirements of the schemes involved.

In 2006, 8,200 farmers had their holdings selected for on-the-spot inspection out of 130,000 who had applied under the single payment scheme. Over 100,000 of these are also applicants for the disadvantaged areas scheme. The value of both schemes to Irish farmers is €1.55 billion in 2006.

My Department's policy towards on-farm inspection for the single payment scheme has been to give advance notice of up to 48 hours in all cases. This policy of systematic pre-announcement of inspections was questioned by the Commission in July 2006 and its unacceptability was conveyed to my Department in a formal communication in August. As a result, my Department was obliged to agree to a proportion of single payment scheme inspections being carried out in 2006 without prior notification. Some 650 farms out of 130,000 involved in the single payment scheme were subsequently selected for unannounced inspection. The balance of inspection cases, representing 92% of the 8,200 farms selected for single payment scheme-disadvantaged areas scheme inspection in 2006, were all pre-notified to the farmer.

The EU regulations governing the single payment scheme would allow my Department to give pre-notification of inspection in the case of certain elements of cross-compliance, for example, nitrates. However, my Department is committed in the charter of rights for farmers to carrying out all single payment scheme and disadvantaged area scheme checks during a single farm visit in most cases. This then obliges my Department to respect the advance notice requirements applicable to the most stringent element of the inspection regime, namely, a maximum of 48 hours' notice but with no advance notice in a proportion of cases.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

My Department is also committed in the charter of rights to pursuing with the European Commission a strategy to deliver advance notification of 14 days for inspections under the single payment scheme. The matter has been raised with the Commission on a number of occasions since 2004, particularly in the context of the Irish situation where we are applying a fully decoupled and essentially area-dependent single payment scheme. I have personally made the case again recently to Commissioner Fischer Boel and this issue will be a key point for Ireland in the CAP simplification initiative of the Commission which is now under way. I had a meeting last week with my German counterpart, Horst Seehofer, who takes over the chair of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in January, where I gave my wholehearted support to his proposal to make simplification of the CAP a core issue during the German Presidency.

Pre-notification of single payment scheme-disadvantaged areas scheme inspections fits in with the practicalities of Irish agriculture where, increasingly, farmers are also engaged in off-farm employment. In a decoupled single payment scheme system, the provision of advance notification of inspection to the farmer should not negatively impact on the effectiveness of the control. However, as the EU regulations stand, my Department is obliged to carry out a small proportion of inspections without prior notification and this is what is being done in 2006.

It is important to point out, however, that the total level of cross-compliance penalties in 2005 — the first year of application of the single payment scheme — amounted to about €330,000 out of the total single payment financial envelope of more than €1.2 billion available to Ireland.

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

Is it not the case that in 2002 the then Minister for Agriculture and Food stated that the nitrates directive, first, would be based purely on science, which we know is not the case and, second, would allow adequate time for phased compliance by farmers? Will the Minister explain how adequate time is being provided to farmers when, within a couple of weeks the information booklet was published and circulated to farmers, the explanatory meetings were arranged and are currently taking place and a rigorous inspection regime is being applied by the Department of Agriculture and Food? Does the Minister believe that is the provision of adequate time for farmers?

How does the Minister expect farmers to understand what is happening when at one of these explanatory meetings the Department of Agriculture and Food and Teagasc blatantly disagreed in regard to the definition of soiled water? How are farmers supposed to comply when the experts dealing with the matter do not know what is happening? Is it not the case that farming is becoming a by-product of bureaucracy rather than the other way round?

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

As I stated in my reply, an agreement was made with the farming organisations under the charter that we would have one inspection. The notification of inspections under certain parts of the single payment scheme can be given, including with regard to nitrates. However, it was agreed that both sectors would be put together so we would not have two or three inspections.

My view, which I have stated publicly and in my meeting with the incoming president of the Council, is that we need simplification and to deal with the issue of on-farm inspections. He and I agreed a number of issues can be dealt with in a more practical way. I will pursue those issues vigorously. I and my team believe there should be pre-notification of inspections — that is how I stand with regard to the policy. As I indicated to the Deputy, the number of inspections has decreased. However, the regulation given to us in August 2006 states there must be no pre-notification, which has caused difficulties.

I do not agree with the Deputy on the issue of nitrates. All of us have worked strongly in dealing with the nitrates directive. We have worked on a scientific basis and many improvements have been made to the scheme. I sincerely thank Deputy Naughten for the positive way in which he has embraced the fact that we have a derogation, which is important. We have also reflected a number of the concerns about the farm waste management scheme.

I wish to clarify one point, namely, the definition of soiled water and slurry, because it is important we have clarity in this regard. There is no difference between the Department, which is the regulatory body, and Teagasc on this issue. My briefing note states with regard to the holding yards, in particular the collecting yards for milk: "In the case of holding yards not slatted, if the slurry is scraped into the slurry tank and the yard is then washed into the soiled water tank and the contents meet the soiled water standards (BOD/DM) it will be treated as soiled water". That is the definition, on which there is absolute clarity.

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

The reality is that farmers are confused and have not been given adequate time to comprehend these regulations. Inspections are taking place but at the same time farmers are supposed to be compliant. In many parts of the country, the explanatory meetings are only now taking place. Why are the Department's inspectors not prepared to inform farmers of the criteria being used for the penalties, which should be the case? Why has there been a situation in law from 1 January 2006 that farmers must have clean water management systems in place rather than tying that in to the farm waste management scheme, which would have made more sense?

The Department and Teagasc were asked at one of the information meetings whether they would provide a free telephone line for farmers to provide information on how to comply with the nitrates directive. In response, farmers were told the service would be put in place in January. There is not much point putting it in place in January when the inspections are taking place now and given that the Department and the Minister have denied farmers the basic information they need to comply with the nitrates directive as it stands.

The reality on the ground is that farmers are being terrorised. They do not know what is happening and they will be penalised with rules and regulations they do not understand and about which they have not been given adequate information.

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

I refute that completely and categorically.

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

It is the factual position.

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

It is those like the Deputy who are winding up farmers. We have seen a reduction in the number of inspections.

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

There were eight inspections on one farm.

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

I have an agreement on the number of inspections that will take place. The cross-compliance penalties imposed last year came to €330,000, from a total of €1.2 billion. Half of the people who received penalties in respect of small difficulties — I am referring to approximately 1,000 farmers — got off on the basis of the tolerances in my scheme. The tolerances were agreed with the farmers.

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

Tolerances are not much good to farmers when they do not know what is going on.

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

I appreciate that the Deputy is not farming. Every farmer got an explanatory booklet providing background information on this issue. Every farmer has that booklet.

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

Since last week.

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

Every farmer will have a copy of the report on the examination that takes place on his or her farm. We had an opportunity within the regulation to provide a farm advisory service. That was not acceptable to the farming organisations. Teagasc and the private planners will provide that service. The Department of Agriculture and Food, and Teagasc have organised events at which such advice has been given. People are anxious to know what is going on. The information is being provided. If people want to disrupt that process, it will be on their heads. It is unfair that farmers who are being facilitated with this information are not being given an opportunity to appreciate it. It is wrong, without a shadow of a doubt, to suggest that my inspectorate is undermining or vilifying farmers. That is factually incorrect. An inordinate amount of bureaucracy and paperwork is being done by my inspectorate, rather than by farmers.

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

The farmers are answerable for it.

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

All of it is verifiable. Deputy Crawford knows that if people want copies of the reports on the inspections that have taken place, such copies are being made available to them. There has been nothing but openness and working together on this issue to ensure that the system is fair. As I have said on many occasions, I intend use the health check on the Common Agricultural Policy to examine ways of providing for less bureaucracy and dealing with issues relating to on-farm inspections. I intend to deliver that to the best of my ability.

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

They should have been given the information before the inspections took place, not after they took place.

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

Information was made available.

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

They were given two hours' warning.

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

There is no point in the Deputies sitting opposite shouting at me. It does not stand up. It is not permissible under the regulation as it stands. Neither the Deputies nor I, as Members of this House, can allow the money of Irish and European taxpayers to be spent without any accountability.

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

Under the regulation, they have the right to get information in advance.

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

I am sure Deputy Naughten agrees with that, as a Member of the House.