John Paul Phelan (Fine Gael)

I will say no more.

Ireland is different to the rest of the EU when it comes to live exports. Since the Channel Tunnel was built Ireland is the only island in the EU as it stands. It is therefore essential that while we hold the EU Presidency we should do as much as we can to promote live trade. Already in 2004 the volume of the live export trade has dropped by 42% to only 33,000 tonnes. Farmers are constantly told by agriculture experts and those involved in State advisory bodies such as Teagasc that they will have a future in farming post-CAP reform. However, they have also been told that both quality and quantity may have to be enhanced and expanded. If there is no live export trade, beef farmers can forget about the future, so it is essential the live trade remains. Beef farmers have nowhere to go and nowhere to sell to if there is no live export trade. Their only option will be the factory.

The Minister for Agriculture and Food has a unique opportunity as President of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council, during Ireland's EU Presidency, to bring his influence to bear and to strike a favourable deal for Irish farmers. He must use this opportunity to our advantage, as this issue has dragged on for too long. If he does not deliver for Irish farmers on the live export issue, it could signal disaster for the Irish beef sector.

Another issue in agricultural circles is the nitrates directive which, in tandem with the concerns surrounding the live export trade, is clearly a huge concern to farmers, particularly dairy farmers. The Minister for Agriculture and Food has been too influenced by the dictates of his colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, who is far too removed from the genuine concerns of farmers and from the hardship this directive will cause for farmers already under threat as a consequence of the effects of falling farm incomes and global challenges.

The Minister for Agriculture and Food should be doing more to address farmers' concerns about this. So far he has done nothing to champion the cause of farmers when it comes to the nitrates directive. Why must farmers bear the brunt of the implications of the directive? I am extremely unhappy at the popular conception that farmers are almost totally responsible for any deficiencies in our water quality. We all know this is not the case and that industry and householders all have a role to play in protecting water quality. The Minister of State referred to the farming supplement in today's Irish Independent. He should read an article in it which refers to the results of a survey of water quality in County Cork. The survey showed the county has a high level of farming and that there are approximately 12,000 farmers in Cork. Some 15% of the national cattle herd and 20% of the national pig herd are located in County Cork. There are large intensive farming units in County Cork, particularly in Mitchelstown, where the Minister's predecessor resides. Despite all this, Cork is managing to improve its water quality. According to the results of this survey, which was carried out by Cork County Council, the quality of water in Cork has improved in recent years. Surely this is proof that intensive farming does not necessarily lead to poor water quality.

The improvements in water quality are due significantly to the effort put in by farmers who have invested time and money to create proper facilities to stop the contamination of local water. Naturally it poses the question that if water quality is improving, why must farmers be subjected to the unworkable rate of 170 kilos of nitrate per hectare as is currently proposed. The current proposition on the nitrates directive of 170 kilos per hectare is for the entire European Union. Ireland has a much longer growing season than large parts of the EU. It is safe to say that the one size fits all policy proposed under the nitrates directive is not essential for Ireland. There are parts of Ireland where it may be necessary but there are parts where it is not and the Government should do more to increase the rate per hectare.

There are two key issues in the nitrate action plan that must be addressed. First, the Minister must ensure Irish farmers are allowed to increase output to 250 kilos per hectare of organic nitrate and, therefore, keep stocking rates of 1.2 cows per acre. The implications of allowing farmers to put out only 170 kilos per hectare would be devastating for pig and dairy farmers. Second, a crucial issue that must be addressed relates to the Government's proposed closure period. Obviously, this is the most contentious part of the nitrates directive. It governs the timescale for slurry spreading. The implications of not being able to spread slurry for three and a half months of the year would create significant storage problems with serious financial implications for farmers at a time when incomes are uncertain. From an environmental perspective the amount of slurry that would be spread in the second half of January, if the closure period October to January is applied, would cause enormous problems. If the weather is fine in October and a farmer has a couple of dry fields, how can it be safe, on anyone's understanding of the EU directive, to prohibit him from spreading then? If the timescale permits it in January, when the ground conditions may be much worse and everyone in the area is spreading, how can it be said that it is safe for ground water and safe for water quality in rivers throughout the country? It is clear that it is not safe.

The nitrates question should be about good farming practice that can be promoted and enforced and not about using unworkable proposals that will make commercial farming impossible. That is the current proposal. It is possible to have both improved water quality and an acceptable nitrates plan. The ball is firmly in the Minister's hands on this issue and he can accommodate both agendas. It is not asking for the impossible, merely expecting the Minister for Agriculture and Food to do right by farmers. I urge the Minister, Deputy Walsh, to resolve these issues immediately and not to stall merely because he is worried about the backlash before the local elections. Uncertainty in the farming industry will do nothing to improve farmers' circumstances.

The last issue I wish to raise is Teagasc closures. I appreciate the Department is not directly responsible and that the board of Teagasc makes these decisions. Nevertheless, the Minister of State is familiar with a number of them in our area of Mullinavat where a black cloud is still hanging over the advisory centre. A decision was made a number of years ago, following dramatic cuts in funding by the Department of Agriculture and Food. There was a cut of €17 million one year and some other amount the following year from the budget of the board of Teagasc. I ask the Minister to indicate, once and for all, the Government's position with regard to keeping these important facilities open throughout the country.