Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Fine Gael motion. The Minister concluded his remarks by suggesting we withdraw our motion but this will not happen. I hope that this debate will be constructive — as is always the case in this House — and we can reach the maximum degree of consensus.

The Minister is aware that the farming community is gravely concerned about the possible impact of the directive. I would be the first to concede that this debate should have been held over the course of the past ten or 15 years and the present dilemma might have been avoided. It is only at the 25th hour that the public and the farming community is tuning into this issue. I am disappointed the debate on this issue has commenced so late in the day. I am somewhat disappointed that there has not been more public dialogue between the Departments and the farming organisations on the matter. I am also disappointed that, from an agricultural perspective, it seems the Minister for Agriculture and Food did not adopt a more hands-on approach when the regulations were being framed. I appreciate, of course, that it is Deputy Roche's responsibility, as Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, to take charge of the debate. However, it would have been more helpful and reassuring for farming families if the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, was seen to be more hands on, although that is something we cannot reverse. She is now involved in a dialogue with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government but it would have offered farmers more reassurance if she had adopted a more hands-on approach initially.

I have attended a number of public meetings on this issue, as have colleagues of the Minister's own political persuasion. They have reported to him, as I can, that there is grave disquiet among the farming community. Some of the concerns may well be exaggerated but there is still a concern among many farmers that the regulations, as currently constituted, could halt farming activity in many areas. We have a duty to respond to those concerns.

The issue of Teagasc is crucial. I welcome the Minister's statement that if new, robust scientific evidence is brought forward he will respond and react to it. The scientific evidence must be robust because we cannot expect Teagasc to change reports and recommendations for the sake of pacifying anyone. It is disappointing to reflect on Teagasc's role in recent months. I have attended a number of debates at the Joint Committee on European Affairs where we heard presentations from Teagasc officials. It appeared at those meetings that the figures being presented to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government were not based on best scientific practice. I recall asking the officials about the level of scientific evidence they were presenting but their replies were not satisfactory. Over the course of the next few crucial weeks, I hope we will get a definitive and verifiable set of figures from Teagasc, which will allow the Minister to make the necessary amendments.

Senator Quinn and others expressed surprise at our party putting forward this motion. They felt that somehow the sentiments expressed in the Fine Gael motion were an attack on farming and the rural environment. It has been said before, although that does not make it a cliché, that farming communities have been great defenders of our rural environment. Only a tiny minority of farmers — as is the case with industrialists and local authorities — have damaged our environment. We all know it is in the interests of farmers to ensure we have the best possible environment, including water quality. We must work towards achieving that because it is in all our interests.

Given that the directive must be signed into law and that cross-compliance must be adhered to, it is crucial for the Minister's officials to respond, if possible, to whatever figures are produced by Teagasc in the next few months.

I have been approached by many farmers on this issue, particularly those who are currently signed up to REPS. They are genuinely fearful that the regime of best environmental practice, under which they were operating, is under threat. We need to clarify that situation to ensure that those people can continue their environmentally-friendly farming as they have done heretofore.

I am interested in what the Minister said about supporting new technology to deal with the fall-out the directive would have on pig and poultry farmers. Farmers in those two sectors were the first to sound the alarm bell, while their colleagues in other sectors are probably only tuning into the debate now. If there is a possibility of dealing with some degree of waste from pig and poultry units through various new systems, including anaerobic digestion, the Government will be obliged to respond by putting grant aid in place.

The Minister also said his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture and Food, has proposed a new scheme of farm pollution grants. I am disappointed that there has been so little progress on that announcement which was made well before Christmas. In the run-up to every meeting of EU Agriculture Ministers we are told that progress has been made and that the scheme has almost been sanctioned but it has not been sanctioned to date. Come next winter, nitrates directive regulations will be in place to some degree so many farmers will require a system of additional pollution control measures, including extra slurry storage capacity. The farm pollution control scheme, which the Minister for Agriculture and Food has announced, is a vital component in putting that infrastructure in place. I hope the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, will be able to get the EU to sign off on her grant scheme in the near future.