Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)

I did not interrupt the Senator. He should have the courtesy to listen to me because although what I am saying may be unpalatable in many ways, it is the truth. The Senator will please have some forbearance.

We face daily fines and will lose the opportunity to negotiate the derogation. Farmers, particularly the 10,000 dairy farmers, will face difficulties as a result and, because of cross-compliance, will face disruption. At the end of that process we must implement the nitrates directive because it is obligatory. We signed up to it in 1991. One might say we should not have done so but we did. We have an obligation to ourselves to protect our environment. There can be nothing more important than protecting our water.

Consultation has been the cornerstone of the development of this programme. I paid tribute last year, and do so again today, to the extraordinary leadership we had last year and the work we put into the process. I pay tribute also to Mr. Walshe, recently appointed president of the Irish Farmers Association, who took the trouble to speak to me personally on this issue. My door is open to all farm leaders. I am willing to listen but I also have to take decisions.

In October last, my Department, together with the Department of Agriculture and Food, jointly issued a consultation paper with the full text of the draft regulations. I agree with Senator O'Meara that the different voices coming from Teagasc have done serious damage to the organisation. That is a great pity because there are some extraordinarily talented people in the organisation. They are good scientists but good science should be objective and clear, and not be based on the whim or pressure of the moment.

When Teagasc said in January, after the regulation had been signed, that there may be some new scientific findings on phosphates I said I was willing to listen. I respect Teagasc but I also expect it to respect itself and to produce robust scientific findings. I cannot have credibility in Brussels, and will not serve farmers, if I go with scientific findings which make no sense or which I do not believe. I would be doing a disservice to Ireland and Irish agriculture.

Teagasc has been involved throughout the process. It was involved in the production of the code of good agricultural practice and is referred to in the code. The code, which is relevant today, states that it is the passport to a cleaner environment and sustainable agriculture. This document was published in July 1996 by my colleague and friend, the former Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin, and Ivan Yates. Both men are from my county and talk sense. It makes no political or agricultural sense for us to start spinning as we are doing.

We won significant concessions in our negotiations last year and now put all of that goodwill at risk for no reason. At the end of the day we will have to go back to Brussels and negotiate. We have won concessions on timing and procedures for land application, requirements on the capacity of storage vessels, general provisions for storage management, and the monitoring of the effectiveness of such measures.

If any Member of this House or any member of any farming organisation doubts what I say he or she should take the time and trouble to compare the code with the figures we have. That has not been done objectively. That is the problem, there is now more heat than light in this debate and objectivity has been put aside. The only way to serve farming interests, protect farmers and our environment is by being objective, looking at the scientific findings, and dealing with the issue.

Teagasc and I appear to be at variance. I said I will accept any robust scientific findings I receive from Teagasc. The standard Teagasc guidelines have been at the core of this process. They were at the core of the code produced in 1996 which is largely transposed into these regulations. I can demonstrate to anyone who wishes to question me that these regulations are less onerous than the 1996 code because we were able to negotiate specific arrangements by listening to the farming organisations.

The Teagasc guidelines on crop nutrients are at the heart of this process and the action programme adopted in July 2005 reiterated Teagasc advice. The specific quantified phosphorus limits were subsequently published in the draft regulations issued by both Departments in October 2005. I do not wish to be pedantic but regulations were published at different times on which there was public consultation. Teagasc never suggested that it had problems with the regulations.

On 8 December 2005 Teagasc presented a one and a half page document asking whether we could rewrite some of the tables. This document was never formally presented. Up to 15 years after the directive came through I would have expected something more solid than that.

I remain willing to listen and if Teagasc produces robust scientific evidence to protect the environment and which fulfils our requirements under this directive I will consider it. I do not want anybody in this House to be under any illusion about our position. We are in this position because we prevaricated and it is time that stopped.

After I made the regulations in December 2005, Teagasc indicated that it may be possible to review part of its advice on the application of phosphorus which could improve the effectiveness of the regulations. I will listen to that advice. I contacted the Commission that night and it agreed to accept my putting Part 3 on hold for some weeks.

The board of Teagasc is meeting elsewhere or will meet soon. I hope the material it produces is copper-fastened scientific information. This must be objective and withstand scrutiny otherwise it will damage the whole cause. I am not prepared to prejudge anything that comes from Teagasc which has been requested to provide, as a matter of urgency, the necessary scientific case to support the revisions it has suggested. The Minister for Agriculture and Food made it clear that if revised fertilisation tables are brought forward and if they are supported by robust underlying science, the Government will be prepared to make a case to the Commission for a revision of the current limits. However I stress it will need to be supported by robust science. When the Government goes to the Commission next time, it must bring a case that will stand up. Any new formulation will therefore require the strongest possible support.

In agreement with the farming representatives and in accordance with the Government's commitment under Sustaining Progress, Ireland is pursuing with the European Commission and with the other member states a derogation in the appropriate cases from the organic nitrogen limit of 170 kg per hectare as set by the directive. In response to a Senator who asked the reason I set the limit of 170 kg, that limit is set in the directive to which Ireland signed up in 1991. There is no point in saying it does not occur because the figure is in the directive. It is critical for Irish farming and in particular for 10,000 dairy farmers and their families, that we achieve a derogation limit of up to 250 kg if possible.

The scientific case in support of the derogation was prepared by the Department of Agriculture and Food and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, in consultation with Teagasc. I am well aware that the implementation of the regulations will require changes in certain farming practices but these changes have been signalled for many years. I refer to the former Minister for Agriculture, Mr. Ivan Yates, a fellow County Wexford man. In 1996 he stated that effective and efficient farm management of waste has the double benefit of avoiding pollution and maximising the nutrient value of farm waste. This is a common sense statement and I cannot understand the reason Fine Gael is leading a debate. The Government's objective at all stages has been to negotiate the best possible terms from the Commission to allow optimum and least-cost solutions to the implementation of environmental requirements under the directive. The Government has a responsibility to achieve that balance and it has been achieved.

The extent of the goodwill extended towards Ireland was nothing short of incredible. As late as the night before we signed I obtained additional marginal concessions to help farmers in places like County Leitrim and County Donegal. One concession was to delay the start date until 1 February which effectively gave farmers a respite until the end of this year. It is regrettable that this goodwill is being wasted and that we are not doing something progressive and positive to help farmers to deal with these responsibilities now. It is regrettable to be having a futile debate when we should be showing leadership. We are where we are because we did not show leadership.

Under the terms of the Sustaining Progress agreement, the terms of the Department of Agriculture and Food modernisation grant scheme were improved substantially in order to assist farmers to prepare for the nitrates programme. I agree with Senator Bannon on one point. I have had an extraordinarily courteous reception from all farmers, including the farmers I met the other day. I have never refused to meet farmers because I have found them, when in a one-to-one negotiation, to be very decent people who are willing to listen and who are aware of the extent of the challenge. I was very pleased to meet with Senator Bannon's constituents the other day. The Senator was present at the meeting and he knows it was a cordial meeting. We shook hands in a civilised fashion and we agreed to disagree on some issues. The Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, has also announced a further revision of the farm waste management programme to be introduced shortly. She has introduced specific proposals to help pig and poultry farmers who will become eligible for the first time for grant aid for storage as this is an issue for those farmers. I met the mushroom farmers recently in County Cavan and in County Monaghan. These are impressive people who have built up small holdings. They need us to show leadership, to make decisions and to get on with the job. Further prevarication is damaging to their interests. The grant level to all farmers is being increased by up to 70% in some instances. The Minister for Agriculture and Food with my strong support has been looking at new technologies, such as anaerobic digestive systems. There are ways of dealing with the specific problems in specific sectors without damaging our water courses.

Higher environmental standards have been promoted by the EU with the result that member states, including Ireland, have gained immeasurably. Agriculture is no different from other areas such as business, industry and energy where changes have been made. I agree with Senator O'Meara that Irish farmers have shown themselves to be more robust and more capable of adjusting than anyone imagined 20 or 30 years ago and good leadership and objective direction plays its part. Compliance with the nitrates directive is not optional, it is obligatory as is compliance with all directives. Ireland is finding itself in difficulties with Europe because we put our heads in the sand and do not accept the obligation. More important than it being obligatory, it is in our interests as a nation to protect these resources. This point was made by Deputy Howlin in 1996.

Senator Quinn said that these are critical resources which must be protected. We can put our heads in the sand and hope the directive will go away but I warn Fine Gael that this will not happen. We can either take all the hits such as the fines, the problems with derogation and with cross-compliance and we can destroy Irish farming by doing nothing or we can make progress. I urge the farming organisations and all in politics to become engaged in the constructive way forward on this issue. Putting our heads in the sand and hoping the issue will go away will not work. It is too important a national issue to be addressed by scaremongering or distortion of which there have been some appalling examples. No Minister, no matter what his or her political persuasion, wants to destroy Irish farming. Such an argument is fatuous nonsense.

As Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, I have a first responsibility to protect the environment and I have a responsibility to protect the health of the nation, and a responsibility to protect the water asset of the nation, all of which I intend to do. I want to protect it in a way that does not trespass unduly on farming and which does not cause difficulties for farmers. I have every confidence that farmers and farming organisations can achieve that balance.

As with any regulations, if genuine improvements can be made, I am prepared to do so. However, I will not do anything that would be detrimental to the interests of Irish water quality or involve further prevarication. If this decision is not made now, a worse decision will be forced on us in the near future. There is no benefit in prevarication, no benefit in self-delusion, no benefit in putting our heads in the sand and all these actions could damage farming. I urge Fine Gael to withdraw the motion.