Michael McCarthy (Labour)

Correct.

There has been much debate and much sitting on the fence recently on the nitrates directive. The failure of this Government to implement the nitrates directive is delaying the implementation of REPS III. REPS III is paying €80 per hectare as opposed to its predecessor which paid €60. This is not a plausible position. I accept there are other urgent priorities for this Administration but this directive was first adopted by the European Council in 1991. We must ask why there has been a failure to implement it to date.

Nobody would disagree with the fundamentals behind the directive in terms of protecting water against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources which is, in itself, a good thing. Naturally enough, we must look at the merits and demerits of the directive and how it impinges or impacts negatively on much of the farming community. The directive requires that member states designate vulnerable zones, implement action programmes and prescribe measures for reducing pollution by nitrates from agriculture. There was some debate on this issue in February when the Minister maintained the figure on the organic nitrogen limit was 170 kg per hectare. He said this was based on advice given by Teagasc, but that is not true. The advice Teagasc gave related to a figure of 210 kg per hectare. It would be interesting to know where the Minister and his officials got the figure and why the Minister said one thing and Teagasc another.

A survey was conducted recently on the nitrates issue in the North. It maintained that more than 4,000 farmers will face significant changes if the nitrates directive is implemented as currently proposed. It includes all the commercial pig and poultry units and around half of Northern Ireland dairy farms but only about 6% of low lying beef farms. The farmers concerned will either have to find alternative or additional means of disposal of animal manures or reduce stock numbers on their holdings if no other solution is found.

The extent of the problems faced by intensive dairy farms was assessed in this survey of 90 members which was conducted by the East Down Positive Farmers group. Based on its calculations of the theoretical nitrate production of the livestock on each farm, the survey indicates that only three out of 19 farmers can continue to farm as they currently do within the standards they currently operate. The other 16 farmers will either have to reduce livestock by a total of more than 520 cows and followers or obtain access to an extra 343 hectares of land. It is clear that land is the issue, but sufficient land is not available to offer what one would deem an immediate and reasonable response to that issue.

The farmers surveyed have a total of more than 3,000 cows on almost 18,000 hectares. Calculations in the survey maintained that there would be a combined loss of 3.7 million litres of milk production which, at 17p per litre, would amount to over £600,000 of gross income of the 16 farmers surveyed. That is a huge possible financial loss by any standard and is something of which we must remain cognisant. The alternative is an extra 343 hectares of conacre at £250 per hectare. That would add almost £86,000 to the aggregate farm cost of the 16 holdings. Whichever way one looks at it, this is causing difficulty.

The nitrates directive will force many farmers to consider significant investment in slurry storage capacity to comply with it. They will also need adequate land availability. Unfortunately, in some cases, that will not be an issue. It is incumbent on the Minister, particularly in his capacity as leader of the EU Council of Agriculture Ministers, in conjunction with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, to find common ground and a compromise between the environmental people, the environmental Departments, the farming organisations and the various Agriculture Ministers. It is essential we do what is required of us at European level. It is embarrassing that Ireland has been frequently fined by the EU because of its failure to implement various directives. Other coalition Governments or previous Governments did not have a Minister with a designated portfolio in terms of Europe. That is an important issue in terms of the implementation of EU directives, particularly a directive as critical to the environment as this one.

It is disappointing that the talks on live exports did not succeed. This is probably one of the most serious issues the Minister will face in his capacity as leader of EU Agriculture Ministers. It is critical because it comprises a huge part of the Irish farming sector. Live exports have been hit in recent years for a number of reasons, not least because of adverse weather conditions over which no state or government has control. Export levels have improved due to better market demand. It is crucial that the current level of exports is maintained. Unrealistic requests were made by some elements of bureaucracy in Europe. We must look at this issue in terms of the protection of farmers' interests and genuine concerns in regard to animal welfare. There is a happy medium and it is incumbent on the Minister to find it.

More than 250,000 cattle were exported last year. These exports play a huge part in the Irish economy, particularly the agricultural industry, therefore it is vital to maintain them at this level. I hope that between now and the end of Mr. Walsh's tenure in his European capacity a solution will be found, common sense will prevail and the issue will be brought to a conclusion.

I welcome the admission by Members on the Government side of the House that this Administration is in its dying days. I look forward with the other members of the caring coalition to forming what will be a very good and positive agreed programme for Government, which will contain accurate information and truth.