Seanad debates
Wednesday, 1 March 2006
Nitrates Directive: Motion.
5:00 pm
James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move:
That Seanad Éireann
—condemns the Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government for misleading Seanad Éireann on 14 December 2005 with regard to the nitrates directive by stating that the implementation of the nitrates action plan had the full support of all farm organisations and was acceptable to them:
further condemns him:
—for his incompetence and mishandling of the implementation of this directive by signing into law regulations which go beyond current best farming practice as supported by Teagasc and as set out in the rural environmental protection scheme;
—for jeopardising the future of Irish farming by signing into law regulations which are unworkable, impractical and not based on accurate scientific information;
—for his failure to suspend the introduction of these regulations in light of revised scientific evidence;
and calls on him to:
—suspend the implementation of the full directive pending revised scientific information to be provided by Teagasc;
—revise the existing regulation to take account of such scientific information; and
—implement the directive in a manner which is practical and workable for all farmers and does not unnecessarily go beyond what is required under EU law.
I welcome the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, to the House on my own behalf and on behalf of the farmers of Ireland. They as much as I are anxious that the Minister, in presenting himself here, will be able to clarify the points raised in this motion and if he cannot do so satisfactorily, take the only course open to him and offer his resignation.
James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Misleading this House and the farming community is a resigning matter. To refer to the Minister as "the grim reaper" or the personification of the death of Irish farming is to describe someone who has single-handedly set about destroying the Irish agricultural sector. This has precipitated the exit from the land by so many farmers whose livelihoods are being destroyed by the implementation of the nitrates directive. The directive which the Minister signed into law against all common sense, includes regulations that are unworkable, impractical and not based on accurate scientific information.
He further compounded this iniquity by failing to suspend the introduction of this regulation in light of the revised scientific evidence. The Minister had the nerve to stand in this House last December and tell me that he had the support of all the farming organisations when he signed the directive into law. In case the Minister has any desire to deny this or suffers from memory loss as regards his words, he said: "They, the farming organisations, were prepared to support hard decisions because they knew that is the only way to deal with the imposition which falls on us following the introduction of the nitrates directive."
This is quite extraordinary. I have not met one farmer or farm leader who gave any indication whatsoever they were prepared to support the Minister's actions on this issue. Conscious as I am of the Minister's tendency to become somewhat heated, as witnessed in this House last week——
John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Senator does not have that tendency at all.
James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——when he used some unparliamentary language, I will phrase my next remarks very carefully. It is not overstating the case to say that the Minister's statement in this House last December was an untruth, and an extremely costly one for the Irish farming sector. This is certainly a resigning matter. The Minister has treated this House with utter contempt. The farming organisations that he claimed, on 14 December, supported him, walked out of the social partnership talks in protest at the regulations introduced by him. His spin and untruths have been contradicted by those organisations. Last week in Ballymahon, County Longford, the Minister was confronted by farmers when he was attending another function. He failed to meet the farmers when the local Deputy requested that a meeting be organised in Ballymahon last week.
John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Who was on television with the Minister last week? I am not sure.
James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister got a rap last week on this particular issue. He was confronted by 150 farmers from the counties of Longford and Westmeath who were very angry at what he is doing, trying to destroy the industry. The nitrates regulations signed into law by the Minister last December will impose limits on the maximum amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus that may be applied to land. However, the regulations he introduced are not based on science or any objective assessment of water quality in Ireland which is among the best in Europe. BP has confirmed that nitrous concentrations in Irish surplus waters are well within the mandatory limits. Water quality in Ireland is among the best in Europe. This was confirmed by the most recent EPA water quality report which showed that 98% of the 301 sites tested were better than the EU standard. At the recent World Economic Forum, which the Minister attended, Ireland shared the top spot in Europe with Norway and Sweden for 100% achievement in water quality.
The regulations will decimate the pig, poultry and dairy sectors and reverse years of progress to achieve best practice in the country's dairy and beef farms, as well as imposing serious restrictions on thousands of farmers already in the REP scheme. Prior to the introduction of these regulations, farmers were assured that the environmental standards required under the REP scheme represented best practice but the nitrates regulations effectively reverse this position.
There was a clear lack of co-ordination between the Departments involved. It was very irresponsible to designate the entire country as a nitrates vulnerable zone without a full evaluation of the impact this will have on farming practice. The regulations place obligations on farmers to prepare and maintain additional records of fertiliser requirements, purchases and stocks for five years. REPS farmers who met the highest international environmental codes do not fulfil the requirements set out in the nitrates directive. I have spoken to several farmers and farm advisers in regard to this issue and they are of the same opinion. The nitrates directive will impose a cost of €1 billion on farmers, which is a direct threat to the viability of many commercial farmers, yet the Government's approach was to get the issue off the table rather than to support this industry, which accounts for one quarter of our net exports, and negotiate on its behalf.
Two key problems are evident with the rules as they currently stand. Intensive producers and those who require early grass will now be severely restricted in their operations due to limitations on both nitrates and phosphates. This will put Ireland's food production at a significant commercial disadvantage compared to other countries within the European Union due to our reliance on a grass-based production system. The level of scale-back on production required to comply with these new rules will make the majority of current operations no longer viable. Small producers, even with a very extensive production system, will have to invest significant amounts of money to address the issues of rainwater and water run-off. This will put a severe financial burden on the operations of many small producers with inadequate housing and holding facilities, especially those with marginal land, with limited land on which to spread such dirty water.
The Minister's decision to defer the implementation of Part 3 of the regulation clearly demonstrates that basing the implementation of the nitrates directive on scientific advice was shelved in favour of reaching a politically expedient conclusion. The Minister also has serious questions to answer on why vital elements of the scientific advice provided by Teagasc were not included in the final statutory instrument. Both the Ministers for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Agriculture and Food failed to prioritise a practical and sensible implementation of the nitrates directive. Part 3 has now been briefly deferred but there are no guarantees that it will be dramatically altered. The deferral appears to be a delaying tactic to take the heat off for a couple of weeks or so.
The remainder of the regulation, especially the parts dealing with nitrates, came into force on 1 February 2006 and will have a serious impact on farmers. The regulation should be suspended in full, pending the production of revised scientific information by Teagasc. Irish phosphates regulations are out of line with what is happening in the rest of Europe. It is not proposed anywhere else to ban phosphate use on all lands which test at over ten parts per million. Irish phosphates regulations are currently by far the strictest in Europe. In most countries the phosphates limits have not yet been discussed, while in Holland the policy is for the achievement of a balance by 2015.
The current best estimate is that somewhere between 13% and 17% of the country's grassland will be allowed to take in some limited pig or poultry manure. It now appears that farmers will not get the level of waste management grants they were promised by the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, in July 2005 to help them adjust to the requirements of the directive. These grants were supposed to help farmers cope with the implementation of the nitrates directive but now farmers will not get the level of funding they require. This is a case of negligence on the part of the Minister. She has dragged her heels on the introduction of this system and in applying to Brussels for its approval.
Revised farm waste management grants were due to come into effect from 1 January 2006 but not only have they yet to be approved by Brussels but the level of grants for farmers is now set to be significantly reduced. Thousands of farmers will lose out and the level of funding provided will not be sufficient for them to build extra waste storage facilities.
Farmers have serious problems getting planning permission through their local authorities. It can take up to six months to get an environmental impact statement and it now appears that these farmers will not be in a position to avail of grants. Late last year the Minister assured farmers that the maximum level of grants would be available until 2008. However, we know from the EU Commission that they will only apply until 2006, a point which Fine Gael highlighted on 19 April 2005. Farmers will not be able to fulfil the planning requirements of local authorities in the short time available as most local authorities are over-stretched with regard to staff and so on. It is impossible to imagine farmers having their developments completed in time.
I call on the Government to support a fair solution to the nitrates issue. I have no doubt the Minister and the Government have been incompetent in their handling of the implementation of the directive. By supporting the motion, Senators from the Government parties will have an opportunity to stand by Irish farmers as it calls for a breathing space to ensure a balanced and implementable set of rules can be put in place to secure a future for farmers.
I call on the Minister to amend the nitrates regulations to make them practical and workable. As a result of his gross incompetence in regard to the implementation of the nitrates directive the Minister is leaving the vast majority of Irish farmers in limbo. They are faced with significant capital costs as the action plan has not taken into account existing farming practice and proposes to be implemented in a bureaucratic manner. There is no doubt there was a major lack of co-ordination between the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Department of Agriculture and Food. The designation of the entire country as a nitrates vulnerable zone without a full evaluation of the impact it will have on farming practice was irresponsible. I hope the Minister will address these issues this evening and postpone the implementation of the regulations.
Noel Coonan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I second the motion. I welcome the Minister to the House and look forward to a constructive debate on this hugely important issue which will have serious repercussions for the farming community.
The first four paragraphs in the motion point out that the Minister does not have the support of the farming community. It is obvious he has lost the confidence of all the farming organisations. This is borne out by the recent withdrawal of the IFA from the social partnership talks. There is a clear indication that farmers are anything but happy with the Minister's performance to date.
The motion also refers to incompetence on the part of the Minister by signing into law regulations which go beyond current best farming practice, as supported by Teagasc and as set out in the rural environment protection scheme. The guidelines for this scheme are set out in the green book, which according to Teagasc is the bible for best farming practice. I would have expected the Minister would take advice from Teagasc and the farming community as the REP scheme has worked very well up to now.
I saw a television debate between the Minister, Deputy Roche, and the head of the Moorepark research facility, Dr. Pat Dillon, in which the Minister looked clearly uncomfortable. The heat of Dubai possibly upset him. The Minister for Agriculture and Food wiped her hands of this matter and passed the poisoned chalice to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, who is very uncomfortable with such a responsibility. The Minister for Agriculture and Food abdicated her responsibilities to the farming community and allowed the Minister to take the flak for it, which was a clever move on her part. There was complete disagreement between the two Ministers and the head of Moorepark Research Centre.
Somebody must have tried to con farmers and somebody did not tell the truth. The Minister could clarify matters tonight and let us know who is and is not telling the truth in this regard. The head of Moorepark Research Centre clearly stated that Teagasc has not signed off on some of the issues for which the Minister clearly tried to blame Teagasc. There is complete disagreement between Teagasc, which is a scientific organisation, and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government when the two should be working hand-in-hand in the interests of Irish farming. This deadlock would be funny if it did not have such serious implications for the farming community.
In respect of this issue, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is up to his neck in slurry. He knows his position is wrong.
John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Senator is out of his depth.
Noel Coonan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The farming community has clearly told the Minister that everyone in the country, with the exception of a few city-based people who believe farmers are amadáns, opposes him. The Minister should deal with the spin that 20% of the water in this country is poor quality. This spin is based on the water report and uses 25 parts per million, which is illegal and not even the objective at the moment. The studies in question have been carried out on the basis of 50 parts per million and in that context, Ireland, Switzerland and Norway come first. Why has this spin been produced?
The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is more responsible for the pollution of Irish water through the activities of local authorities and industrial waste than the farming community. Farmers are as concerned about the environment as anyone else. It is in their interest to be concerned about it because they and their families live and work in the country. They accept that there is a need for the environment to be safeguarded but not to the point where they are put out of business, which is what these regulations will do.
I do not wish to be personal because I wish to have a clean and honest argument tonight with the Minister. I appeal to him to listen to farm leaders and the people in rural Ireland before it is too late. He knows that these regulations are unworkable. An official from the Department, Mr. John Sadlier, who accompanied the Minister earlier this evening, told the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government that the regulations are not written in stone.
John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Senator Coonan should not identify officials by name.
Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is not permitted to identify an official by name.
Noel Coonan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I apologise, I was unaware of that rule. I withdraw my comments.
I hope the proposals are not written in stone and that where alternatives and improved scientific advice are available to the Minister, he will take them on board. This advice is available to him. At a meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government, Dr. Séamus Cross from Teagasc stated that the phosphorus and nitrogen levels permitted in tables 12 and 13 of the action plan were not signed off by Teagasc. However, the Minister chooses to disregard the advice of Teagasc, which one would expect to be the expert body in this field.
This matter is very serious. We must remember that the farming community has been challenged and driven to despair by successive legislation and directives implemented by this and previous Governments. Examples include the animal remedies regulation, the nitrates directive and prescription-only medicine. Is the Government attempting to drive farmers off the land? We will be left with a countryside composed of trees and animals but lacking people. The Government is mounting a sustained attack on farmers and somebody has to say "Stop". I am asking the Minister to call a halt to this attack on farmers.
The farming community has always been adaptable. It took part in negotiations leading to the single farm payment. We were told then that the payment would eliminate bureaucracy, which is the one scourge of the farming community. However, we have more bureaucracy and regulation than ever before. Farmers must engage in more record keeping. Inspectors from the Departments of Agriculture and Food and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government visit farms. Farmers now need two full-time secretaries to deal with all the record keeping imposed on them where once they only needed one. The situation is unreal and is not what farmers signed up to.
Farmers and the public will accept a measure which is practical and workable. If these regulations are introduced, 15% of agricultural production will be wiped out straight away. The chief executive of Arrabawn Co-op has spoken to me about its concerns. Could the Minister tell us where this co-operative and local authorities are supposed to dispose of their sludge? The chief executive of Arrabawn Co-op told me that in the last three years, the number of its suppliers has decreased by 27%.
If the Minister is given more time to assail the farmers of Ireland there will be none left. He is safe enough in the garden county of Wicklow but he should remember how important is rural Ireland. He should treat this issue in the same way as he treated incineration. In other words, he would favour it but not in County Wicklow.
Michael Kitt (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:
—recognises that Ireland, as with all EU Member States, is required to adopt a nitrates action programme, including appropriate mandatory regulatory provisions, in order to give effect to the 1991 EU nitrates directive;
—notes that 20% of groundwater in Ireland has nitrate concentrations above guideline drinking water standards, that 27% of Ireland's rivers are affected by eutrophication and there is widespread bacteriological contamination of groundwater and drinking water supplies by livestock manure;
—recognises that as a modern, clean and developed country we have a duty to ensure that Ireland's rural communities and the rural economy should not be exposed to these problems;
—notes that the European Court of Justice in 2004 held that Ireland was in breach of the nitrates directive by failing to implement a nitrates action programme and that any further failures could lead to the imposition of daily fines which would be borne by the Irish taxpayer;
—welcomes the Government's efforts to secure European Commission approval for a derogation of up to 250 kg organic nitrogen per hectare per annum, on the basis agreed with the farming pillar under Sustaining Progress;
—notes that negotiations on the nitrates derogation, which is crucial to dairy farmers and the pig industry, are being affected by the delay in fully implementing the nitrates action programme;
—notes the connection between the implementation of Ireland's national nitrates action programme and regulations and the application, for the benefit of Irish farmers, of continuing EU agricultural support arrangements;
—endorses the Government's policy of securing the optimal and least-cost arrangements for compliance with the nitrates directive, thus protecting as far as possible the interests both of the environment and of those Irish farmers whose activities are affected;
—notes the range of measures which have and continue to be taken by the Government to address the costs at farm level which arise from the directive;
—recognises that extensive consultations with farming interests have taken place, in relation to the development of the national nitrates action programme and regulations; and
—supports the Government's efforts to secure Ireland's compliance with the nitrates directive.
I welcome the Minister to the House and am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this issue. Both Senators Bannon and Coonan made excellent speeches. According to the last part of the motion, Fine Gael wishes to implement the directive in a manner which is practical and workable for all farmers and does not unnecessarily go beyond what is required under EU law. However, the motion does not take into consideration the different types of farmers in this country. I represent many small farmers whose requirements might differ from those of larger farmers. At least Senator Bannon accepts that EU law is in place in this regard.
We must comply with this directive which was adopted in 1991 so it is 15 years since this measure was discussed.
James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Government has sat on the ditch in respect of it.
Michael Kitt (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I also remind Senator Bannon that former Fine Gael Deputy, Ivan Yates, was Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry from 1994 to 1997 and had the opportunity to do something about this. The simple fact is that this matter was left hanging until the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government had the courage to grasp the issue. The Government must address it because Ireland will incur daily fines if we do not implement the directive.
After the judgment against Ireland in March 2004, we were forced to act very quickly. It is to the credit of the Ministers for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Agriculture and Food that meetings were held to discuss the issue, some of which I was glad to attend as a member of my parliamentary party. The Government acted quickly in respect of nitrogen and phosphorus.
The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has stated that he is waiting for advice in respect of Part 3 of the regulations and phosphorus. I was glad to see that he referred to nitrogen limits. Most of the farmers I represent would not have a problem with these limits but I would welcome if a way was found to improve the situation for more intensive farmers. We would also like to reach a resolution on the derogation soon. This issue was referred to by the Minister.
When I examined the limits and the different zones of A, B, and C, I remembered when life was simple and farmers, being very good keepers of the environment, would probably spread manure on a fine day. This was the traditional practice. There was good weather in November and December and, if life were simple, we might say this should continue. However, we all appreciate that this will not happen in the future.
I welcome the Minister's reference to the different grants that will be available as part of a farm waste management package. It will be important to put these in place. Farmers must have arrangements in place by 1 January 2007 to divert clean water away from animal manure and slurry. Different dates apply to pig farmers and other farmers but the regulations will apply to all farmers from 1 January 2009. This is a welcome package.
We have been getting different information from Teagasc, which has sometimes been speaking with two voices. It was obvious in the programme in which the Minister was engaged, to which Senator Coonan referred, which has been disappointing. When the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government wrote to the director of Teagasc for information, he said that it had been working on the matter for three years. He said that many meetings were held and the amount of material requested on all aspects is quite large and will take several weeks to complete and compile. In addition, the staff involved are currently busy preparing new material requested urgently by the Department. While there was a delay in obtaining information, I hope the Minister has provided sufficient time so that we will quickly receive the required information on phosphorus. Information for farmers is very important. What the Department of Agriculture and Food announced in regard to an advertisement in the farming press is very welcome. We also welcome the explanatory booklet which is designed to explain the new rules clearly and simply.
The proposals for a derogation laid down in the nitrates directive 2004 is important. It has been stated that the derogation is vital for 10,000 extra intensive dairy farmers. I hope the derogation will be agreed by the middle of the year. It is unfair to say that all farmers and farming organisations are annoyed with the Minister. I will quote from an article in the Connacht Tribune which refers to the chairman of County Galway IFA who welcomed the setting up of a sub-committee to review the new report from its scientific staff on the implementation of the nitrates directive. The article reads as follows:
Mr. Silke said that this was a very positive move and added that he was also delighted that the boycott of Teagasc had also been lifted. He said that the IFA had no problem with any staff member working with Teagasc ... But Mr. Silke was confident that the review by the independent sub committee would make it more palatable and workable for farmers of all size holdings.
The president of Macra na Feirme, Mr. Colm Markey, is also quoted in the newspaper as saying that the establishment of a special sub-committee represented a light at the end of the tunnel in relation to the whole nitrates directive debacle. He also stated as follows:
I am hopeful that this sub-committee will prove an effective structure to allow the Board and Teagasc's scientific staff work more closely together to resolve outstanding issues ... There is a need in the whole nitrates debate to recognise a much broader range of factors that influence the effective and responsible use of fertilizers.
This requirement has been clearly laid down by two farming organisations. These farm leaders recognise the need to monitor water. In the EPA report for 2005, the director general said that the EPA issued a number of reports in 2005 on water monitoring. Water quality in Ireland remains of a high standard, with a declining incidence of serious pollution, even though eutrophication and the lack of municipal waste water treatment continued to be the biggest problem. I was pleased that the report paid tribute to the Department for the extra staff the EPA received in 2005. There was a significant increase in staffing levels which will allow the EPA to carry out this work to a very high standard.
Water quality is at the centre of the directive. That the situation is being improved in terms of public supplies is welcome. The Minister will be aware of my views on small group water schemes that must be improved and updated. I pay tribute to him in this regard. Some €58 million has been allocated this year for small water and sewerage schemes in County Galway, while €258 million has been allocated for next year. This is a sizeable amount of money which will help with the water services programme in County Galway.
I agree with what Senator Coonan said about sludge. My colleague, Senator Ulick Burke, raised what is happening in East Galway, the area we represent. Much of the sludge coming from overloaded sewerage schemes and Mutton Island in Galway city has been landed on farms throughout the county. The nitrates directive will help to deal with this issue because it is appalling that people can dump sludge and cause a terrible smell in an area. The directive will go some way towards stopping this indiscriminate dumping.
Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I wish to share my time with Senator Norris.
I welcome the Minister to the House. I also welcome the Government's amendment which notes that 20% of ground water in Ireland has nitrate concentrations above guideline drinking water standards, that 27% of Ireland's rivers are affected by eutrophication and there is widespread bacteriological contamination of ground-water and drinking water supplies by livestock manure. I do not think this aspect has been given sufficient publicity. I do not think enough people know what is happening. I do not think people realise that the Minister is trying to protect all the citizens of Ireland to ensure that they have better drinking water, river water and lake water.
I disagree totally with the Fine Gael motion which panders to the farmers' lobby, just as the Government has been doing——
Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——in its abject failure to live up to our European obligations and apply this long-overdue directive, which all other countries have done long ago. The Fine Gael Members of this House should be ashamed of themselves for lending themselves to this manoeuvre.
James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Senator is a dangerous little man.
Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is way beyond time for a reality check.
Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Allow Senator Quinn to continue without interruption.
Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The place of agriculture in Ireland has changed. When I graduated from university in 1960, agriculture was the mainstay of the economy. It now accounts for a mere 3% of our gross national product. It is time we woke up to the fact that what is in the farmers' interests is not always in the interests of the country as a whole. In cases such as the one I quoted from the amendment, the farming interests are directly opposed to the national interest. It would be a tragedy if, because of this short-term political expediency, the national interest is not allowed to prevail.
A few weeks ago in the Joint Committee on European Affairs, I stood up to the president of the IFA on this matter. I said then, which was no less than the truth, that the farmers were holding the country to ransom in this area. Meanwhile, we allow them to go on polluting the water of this country, which is the property of all the citizens, not just the farming community. After I made that intervention, which got a lot of media attention, I received a telephone call from a man who served on one of the internal committees that had recently been considering this matter. He said that at every meeting the representatives of Teagasc came in for repeated brow-beating by the farmers' representatives, in an attempt to get them to change their scientific recommendations in the farmers' favour. The truly scandalous aspect is that all this improper pressure appears to have had an effect, and Teagasc is apparently now ready to change its position on the issue.
If Teagasc does so, it will have totally compromised its scientific integrity and become instead just a mouthpiece for farming interests. I have always supported and admired the work of Teagasc. It should, however, be concerned with science first, last and always. Scientific laws cannot be bent to suit anyone's needs; they stand on their own feet and should always be recognised and respected as such.
I welcome the Minister's statement of yesterday which seemed to show a somewhat belated reluctance on his part to stand up to the pressures now raining down on him and on the Government. To strengthen his backbone, I remind him that he is the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, not the Minister for Agriculture and Food. His first responsibility and that of the Government is to the people of Ireland as a whole, those who stand to benefit from the immediate and complete implementation of the nitrates directive. The Minister has shown such responsibility tonight.
We must, for once, stop listening only to the voices of farmers. Instead, we must listen to the opinions of ordinary citizens, who have a totally different set of interests in this matter. I am on the side of the people on this issue, and on the side of the European law we have been flouting blatantly for far too long. I support the Minister in this debate.
David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am grateful to my friend and colleague, Senator Quinn, for allowing me time to take part in this important debate. I agree with him that the Minister has, to some extent, come out with his hands up with regard to the amount of chemicals being used. This is a serious problem. Some weeks ago, I heard representatives from Teagasc partaking in a radio discussion. They seemed to be in some confusion because they spoke on the one hand about airily scientific standards and, on the other hand, seemed prepared to modify those standards because of the economic damage perceived by farmers in this matter. Like Senator Quinn, I ask whether this is good science. I have much sympathy for Teagasc, particularly the way in which its board is constituted. Farmers and their interests are heavily overrepresented. We must remember, as Senator Quinn observed, that it is all of us as taxpayers who pay their wages. We are entitled to expect respect for correct science.
Last Tuesday, 21 February, the author of a leading article in The Irish Times observed that it seems the Government will give in to the farming lobby. I sincerely hope this is not the case. There is much misinformation on the part of farmers. They say, for example, they are not responsible for pollution. This is not true; they are massively responsible. They are the worst polluters of water and account for more damage than all the other main groupings, including sewerage works, industry and so on.
David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The facts and figures are there. One does not have to be a scientist to appreciate the reality of the situation. Farmers also say that we hardly need a water pollution policy because everything is fine. Others, however, have been saying there is a serious problem in this regard for many years. Senator Henry was one of the first to raise this issue.
Some 30% of our rivers are either moderately or slightly polluted and the water quality has deteriorated significantly in the past 30 years. Almost one third of rivers are eutrophic, which I understand means they are enriched as a result of the use of fertilisers. This enrichment leads to excessive plant growth which blocks out oxygen. This is not a positive development. The principal cause of this is not even slurry, which is very unpleasant and is responsible for fish kills, but the phosphorus content in the nitrates.
I rely on information in the newspapers for this debate, some of which is very well-informed. It seems farmers are using twice as much nitrate as they need.
David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This information is from Teagasc. Approximately half the agricultural land in Ireland is saturated with phosphorus, with dangerous amounts running off and polluting rivers or remaining in the soil. Only 25% of the phosphorus that is applied is taken up by plants for nourishment, while three quarters of it is useless to the farmer and builds up in the soil where it does environmental damage as it runs off into the water table.
It is astonishing that this aspect of the directive is the one that will apparently be weakened. I appeal to the Minister not to do so. The arguments are clear — we are overusing nitrates and only 25% of them are absorbed by plants. It is almost witch-doctoring in agrarian terms. In response to the bullying that is taking place, it seems Teagasc has, in the last several weeks, revised its recommended limits for agricultural use upwards to a point where it now recommends a higher dosage than its own scientific research indicates. Here we have more of the bullying by strong lobbies, including vintners and farmers, that so bedevils good governance. Farmers are pushing our scientists into doing something which their own scientific understanding and the facts registered by them contradict.
I urge the Minister to be tough and to stand up to them. I cannot think of another person more able to do so.
John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Should we also stand up to the university lobby?
David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
On the other hand, the Minister might be tempted to let the oleaginous content of the ministerial position overwhelm him and to just slither over the edge into an easy solution. Let us have no more Irish solutions to Irish problems. We must look after the health and safety of the public by accepting and implementing the scientific evidence. Much of the nitrate applied to the soil seems to be wasteful.
John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome the Minister and his officials. I begin by pleading that we be saved from The Irish Times. It is unfortunate that this motion, which makes serious accusations against the Minister, is before the House. I am sure he will rebut those accusations very capably, as he has always been able to do. From my dealings with him when he was a Member of this House and subsequently, I have never known him to be misleading in any of his utterances here or elsewhere. I am sure he was not misleading in this case and he is well capable of rebutting the arguments put forth today.
I will deal with the broader issues relating to the nitrates directive. It has been discussed in an unfortunate context and this has worsened over recent weeks. The debate has been extremely simplistic on many occasions and some contributors, myself included, have found our words and questions interpreted as anti-farmer. It has been put to me that my intervention at the Joint Committee on European Affairs was anti-farmer. If being pro-environment, pro-consumer and pro-water quality is considered anti-farmer, I plead guilty. I say this having worked in agriculture all my working life. Protestations from some farmers that they are the protectors of the environment are pure bullshit.
John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The word is appropriate in the context because we are discussing slurry, among other issues.
I made the point that there are cowboys in this business just as there are in every other business. The president of the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, came to the meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs and made points about the generality of the issue, which is that we use very small amounts of nutrients relative to other European countries. That is true. However, we are not dealing with the generality but with the particular. We are dealing with those who will not abide by the general standards of good farming which have been enunciated by Teagasc. I recounted at the meeting that in driving from Kerry very early in 2005, on a night when rain was teeming from the heavens, I repeatedly encountered people spreading slurry. There was only one place the nutrients in that slurry could go; they did not go into the ground but into the waterways.
There is a problem with our waterways and it is no good saying that farming is not a contributor. I accept it is not the only contributor — there are others, including the local authorities, which have been exempt under legislation. There are phosphates in household detergents which are significant contributors. Hormones come out of waste water into our water courses. Farming, however, is a contributor.
It is not a question of either this or that. We do not have a choice. That is why the motion is cynical. If the Opposition found itself in Government in the morning, it would have to do exactly the same thing. This matter was adjudicated on by the European Court of Justice. This directive has been in place since 1991, so we have to accept we must do something. We can debate the nature of what we might do——
John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——and that is quite appropriate. The motion calls for the implementation of the nitrates directive in a manner which is practical and workable for all farmers and does not unnecessarily go beyond what is required under EU law. Who is suggesting that we unnecessarily go beyond what is required under EU law?
James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Look at what has happened in Denmark, Sweden and in every other country.
John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The statement "does not unnecessarily go beyond what is required under EU law" is a ridiculous one to include in any motion. Nobody is suggesting that we unnecessarily go beyond what is required under EU law.
John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We have been confronted with a directive and a court judgment. We get €2.3 billion per year from the European Union and if we do not abide by this directive, we will face daily fines and will jeopardise some of the moneys we get. Is that what the Opposition wants? The Minister for Agriculture and Food will send out the statements to farmers showing that €2.3 billion will go to 140,000 recipients. That is a very significant amount of money. We have derived very significant benefits and we must accept our responsibilities.
It is untrue to say the implementation of the directive will drive thousands of farmers out of business. Some 10,000 dairy farmers have a problem.
James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Senator should talk to the IFA and the farming organisations.
John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Some 10,000 dairy farmers use large amounts of nitrogen, and probably must do so. However, they are being squeezed so much economically — to say nothing of science — that they will have to reduce the amount of nitrogen they use for purely economic reasons.
I have been involved in this business for a long time and numerous efforts were made over the years to predict what would be required by crops in terms of nitrogen and phosphates. Those efforts were made internationally in climates much more predictable than others. We know what a ten tonne crop of wheat will reduce in the soil. That is straightforward. However, we do not know what the soil will contribute to the crop. That depends on the climate and a whole host of factors. It is an extremely difficult thing to predict.
Teagasc has been unjustly vilified in this regard. Over the years I, and thousands of people in this country, have benefited enormously from the advice of Teagasc and its predecessor, ACOT. It contributes immeasurably to the welfare of farming in this country and that should not be forgotten. It should not be used as a political football to prove a point. That is wrong and should not happen.
There is another error in this motion and it comes back to the original charge made against the Minister. At the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs on 15 February, the president of the Irish Farmers Association said he accepted a nitrates directive must be implemented. I regarded that statement as so significant that I wrote it down at the time and welcomed it when it came to my intervention.
James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The same person said the Minister was introducing highly-damaging legislation.
John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Everybody accepts the need for a nitrates directive to be implemented.
John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Workable is what one decides it means. We all want the science to speak but when it speaks, we want it to be workable.
There has been much talk in this House about alternative enterprises, rural development and alternatives for farmers, one of which is rural tourism. How will we promote those things and Irish food across the world if we do not have the basic water quality required?
Noel Coonan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We have the best water quality in Europe.
6:00 pm
Kathleen O'Meara (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I very much welcome the debate on this contentious issue. I hoped we would be able to have a debate which had more light than heat in it but I am not sure it is going that way. This debate is reflective of what has been happening in regard to this issue, particularly in recent months, and it is not working. It has become an issue of pro or anti-directive meaning pro or anti-farmer, rural Ireland or agriculture. That is not assisting this debate. We should get back to a proper discussion on what the directive is about. I would say to Senator Dardis that the debate must be on the workability of the directive.
Before Christmas my brother, who is a farmer, asked me what the Minister was doing with this directive. He is a progressive farmer who is committed to high environmental standards but he cannot understand why a directive is being brought in which looks as if it will put farmers out of business. The confusion surrounding this issue is making the situation worse. We should review the current situation.
I come from an agricultural background, although I am not engaged in agriculture so I do not have a direct interest in the directive. However, as a public representative from a constituency in which agriculture is a very important issue, I have an interest in it. Agriculture is also a very important issue for the country and we are at a crossroads in this regard. Senator Coonan and I attended a meeting on Monday morning in Nenagh with Arrabawn co-operative setting out to us the difficulties it is encountering. One of the issues was this directive. Irish agriculture faces a serious challenge and considerable change. I have no doubt the industry will manage it in its own way.
As Senator Dardis and other Senators said, the debate on this important directive is relevant to consumers and to everyone in the country but the fact it has become a nasty row between farmers and others is not helpful. I appeal to the Minister, who is responsible for this area, to do what he can to try to get the debate back on track. I also appeal to the IFA to return to the table. It will not work if people walk away from the debate saying they will not engage.
The issue in respect of Teagasc is very damaging. I have not had time to research and get a briefing on the scientific advice so I will not go into it because I do not understand it as it is complex. However, it appears we are looking at conflicting advice. Senator Norris said Teagasc should not give in to farmers' lobbying. I do not see it that way. I hope the latest Teagasc report will tell us and the Minister what we need to hear. I expect a scientific organisation funded by the State to do just that. From where I am standing, Teagasc has been quite damaged by this whole episode. The public needs an explanation from Teagasc as to what is going on in terms of the advice given to the Government and, indeed, why the Minister has taken that advice in the way he has. That is fairly critical to the whole debate.
The regulations which have been signed are inconsistent with the set of regulations and rules which apply to REPS and given that a REPS farmer will be out of sync with the provisions directive, one must ask what is happening in terms of this directive. It is unworkable and if that is the case we will have get it to a stage where it is workable. It does not serve farmers or consumers that the debate on the directive has gone the way it has and that the issue is at this stage where we are up against the implementation of the directive in terms of fines, our relationship to the EU, a court judgment and so on.
The directive does not serve the wider issue of protecting the environment, which is the core issue. This is about water quality. In north Tipperary alone — Senator Coonan and other Senators will be aware of this — Lough Derg is polluted as a result of the run-off of nitrates and the over-use of phosphates from a number of sources, of which farmers are one. By-laws have been introduced and considerable work has been done on the ground, particularly in the catchment areas of the rivers flowing into the lake to reduce the amount of phosphates and other pollutants. That work needs to continue and it is a long-term process. We must create a partnership in terms of protecting our environment while ensuring the agricultural sector continues to operate not only for producers but consumers.
This directive should not be about putting farmers out of business and making it impossible for people to be engaged in agriculture. The future of agriculture is hugely important for far too many areas for us to take a blithe approach to it. I look forward to the Minister's response to this debate. I hope he will address the issue of workability of the directive and of making sure that it works for the environment, consumers and for producers on the land, namely, farmers.
Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the nitrates directive in this House and I hope to throw some light as opposed to some of the heat that has been thrown on it. I agree with Senator O'Meara on two issues. One is that this directive is about protecting water resources. The presence of nitrates in our water resources is nasty. People in rural Ireland are drinking those waters and we have to ensure there is an end to the presence of nitrates in these resources. Phosphates are nasty or as, the Senator said, they have a nasty effect, eutrophication being one of those effects, and there must also be an end to the presence of phosphates in our water resources.
If we care about our environment I could not put the position any better than the Senator's colleague, Deputy Howlin, did when in 1996 he said that our water resources, our rivers, our lakes and our groundwaters are national assets. He said it is essential that we protect these valuable assets and that economic progress does not bring about deterioration in the quality of our waters. Deputy Howlin was right in pointing out that is what we must do. It is what the nitrates directive requests us to do.
It is a disgraceful fact that 15 years after the directive was signed into law and 15 years after we agreed to do that, we still have not met our responsibilities. It is also a fact, which is unpalatable but must be recorded, that every other member state of the European Union has met its requirements in this regard because we all care about our environment. I believe that farmers care about it and that much of the blame laid on them is unfair because they are not the only source of pollution.
This Fine Gael motion condemns me for "signing into law regulations which go beyond best farming practice". Has that party forgotten that it was the then Minister for Agriculture, Mr. Yates, who in 1996 introduced the code of good agricultural practice, this document that I have in my hand? It had the full support of the farmers organisations at the time and was written in conjunction with the then Department of the Environment. It was signed jointly by both Ministers and subscribed to by Teagasc. This code is the baseline document. All the rhetoric and the huff and puff about the directive must bear relationship to it. Under the nitrates directive, this code of voluntary practice was to be prescribed into Irish law but it has not been.
Does Fine Gael not realise that in many respects the 1996 code went even further than the current regulations? Following our discussions with farming organisations we successfully negotiated in detail on specific points made by those organisations. Does Fine Gael not realise that the nitrogen limits prescribed by me in the regulations are less onerous than those in the 1996 document? I will give specific comparisons because I hope that one or two Senators might actually read the document. I draw Members' attention to page 51 and ask them to examine table 12. In the 1996 Fine Gael-Labour Party document, the stocking rates on less than 1.5 livestock per unit provides that nitrogen is supplied at zero. That is in the document to which the Members' opposite subscribe.
Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is in the document and I ask the Senator not to hide his head in the sand and deny the facts. That is the truth. It is on page 51 of the document signed by the former Minister, Mr. Yates, who was a good Minister for Agriculture, and the then Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin, who cares as much as I do for water quality. If Members read appendix 3 — table 1, they would note that it is virtually the same as table 10, which has been much vilified, since this is the document that deals with indexation which is at the heart of the issue, and yet the documentation and the wording are the same. After ten years, why is this proposal being put by the second largest political party in the country?
I draw Members' attention to the storage capacity on page 13 of the document and ask them to compare the provisions at paragraphs 2.7 and 2.8. I could go on but I do not wish to because I am sure I do not have the time.
The reality is that we are up against it. We should have done this a long time ago but we did not do so. We have already failed in a European Court judgment. We face daily fines. We should not be implementing this because we have lost a judgment or we face daily fines. We should be doing it because we care about our environment and our health. It is wrong for any political party to simply stick its head in the sand, particularly when ten years ago that same party took a directly opposite view.
James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is people's livelihoods with which we are dealing.
Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Does the Fine Gael Party forget that only one and a half years ago, in its European election manifesto, it stated that "Fine Gael remains very concerned at the failure of the Government to prioritise environmental matters, and to implement key EU Directives ...". There is no EU directive of more significance to water than the nitrates directive. How can Fine Gael, which rightly prides itself on being a party which is progressive, stick its head in the sand in that regard? I cannot believe that Fine Gael put down this motion asking me to delay the introduction of the directive further. Even if it were in my power to do so, it would be the wrong action to take. It is time we stopped the prevarication and got on with the job.
In 1996, my predecessor as Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin, and the then Minister for Agriculture had no problem in putting their names to the best practice guidelines booklet. If Members read the booklet, the introductions they wrote could not be better written today. In the Dáil last week, Fine Gael members asked me to postpone implementing the nitrates directive.
James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy is the Minister and there has been bad scientific information.
Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In complete contrast, the Labour Party in the Dáil last week asked me who was standing up for the environment. I say to Senator O'Meara that I am. Her party's spokesperson in the Dáil last week indicated his impatience with this process, and he was right because we cannot continue to delude ourselves that we can ignore the realities. One wonders whether Fine Gael cares one whit about Irish water quality because there is not a single word in this motion, which I suggest Senator O'Meara should read, about the quality of water in this country, the health implications of bad quality water and the implications for rural houses and farming.
To paraphrase Deputy Howlin's contribution, Ireland's water resources are a major national asset. They supply our drinking water. They support rich natural habitats, including salmon and trout fisheries. They provide a wide range of commercial, industrial, recreational and amenity uses. They support rural life, and we should protect that resource.
The Environmental Protection Agency, in its well-regarded state of the environment report, estimated that in Ireland agriculture is the source of 73% of all phosphorus and 82% of all nitrates. Senator O'Meara told me to look at the science. That is the science. I am not a scientist and I will not second-guess an environmental scientific report which is much respected.
The nitrates directive aims to tackle eutrophication of waters due to excessive inputs of phosphorus and nitrates. Eutrophication of inland fresh waters has been identified by the Environmental Protection Agency "as probably Ireland's most serious environmental pollution problem", yet the second largest political party in this country wants me to ignore that reality. Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphates are essential to agriculture but we must get the balance right. Farmers spend €400 million on artificial fertiliser. A 5% reduction in that would put €20 million a year into their pockets.
Ireland is the last of the EU 15 member states to adopt an action programme under the directive. We are in the present position because we have failed to do this. We would not step up to the plate and do what needed to be done. The debate on phosphates is fascinating. It would not have occurred when Deputy Noel Dempsey, as Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, wanted to do this. In 2001, shortly after the point when his progress stalled, the French phosphates case brought phosphates to the fore.
The financial consequences for Ireland and Irish agriculture of doing what Fine Gael asks tonight would be utterly devastating, if we remove the public health issue altogether. We would face daily fines of God knows what size. Farmers would have a problem because if we are not cross-compliant, farm payments will be disrupted.
Senator Dardis made the most important point, namely, there are 10,000 dairy farmers who desperately need the derogation. One of the Opposition Senators also mentioned this issue. The farmers want to go from 170 kg to 250 kg. I entered the nitrates committee on 12 December 2005 because I had the guts to sign this regulation on 11 December. It is critical to every progressive dairy farmer that we achieve that derogation. This latest nonsense has caused the suspension of discussions on the derogation which will stay suspended as long as Part 3 is suspended.
Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
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.
Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
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.
Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am sorry to interrupt the Senator but, on a point of information, that is precisely the issue — the European Commission has to sign off. I mentioned the issue of our bona fides, which is important. What the Commission sees and how it judges our behaviour is what is important.
Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I apologise for having interrupted the Senator.
Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We are getting signals from Brussels that the Commission is unhappy with some of the levels of grant aid. We need to clarify that matter because we must ensure that, if we are to have a new strict system in place, we can help people who are penalised as a result of it.
I hope that the dialogue will continue between the Minister and the farming organisations. It is in the interests of the Minister, Opposition spokespersons, the IFA and farming families that we reach a workable consensus which will protect our environment and defend agriculture. We are all in this together and there will be no future for agriculture if we cannot protect our environment.
Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I must ask the Senator to conclude as several others are offering.
Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In the coming weeks, we must try to ensure that people will sit around the table for a reasonable debate to reach a fair consensus.
Peter Callanan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I join with other speakers in welcoming the Minister, Deputy Roche, to the House. It is my first opportunity to take part in a debate here which he has attended. I am delighted to have such an opportunity. I congratulate him on the excellent work he is doing at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, which includes the nitrates directive. The Minister's responsibility is great and we trust that he is more than up to the job. I was going to refer to the 1996 signing off on this matter by the former Deputy, Ivan Yates, the former Minister, Deputy Howlin, and the farming organisations. There is no need for me to do so, however, because the Minister has already dealt with it.
I can agree with many of the things that Senator Bradford said. He will be aware, as I am, that we on Cork County Council engaged successfully with the farming organisations on the introduction of a pilot scheme concerning the nitrates directive to protect water in the region. We undertook that scheme collectively. Senator Bradford and I are both aware of the ill-effects caused by algal bloom in the River Lee. The Government amendment contains a very nice word "eutrophication", which I now know means nutrient enrichment and pollution. We are aware of the consequences of water pollution.
The EPA, Teagasc and the farming organisations were involved in the project. A scheme was put together which was helpful. However, farmers have been somewhat wronged by this motion. It is unfair, of no use or help to them, and is to their disadvantage. Farmers were also criticised by those who spoke in favour of the amendment and against the motion. Those who spoke in this manner may not have done so for the sake of being critical but because they did not know the facts.
The use of chemical fertiliser has been reducing over the past ten years. The cost of fertiliser over those years has gone through the roof, and the advice from Teagasc has been to farm to a level of requirement. That is a fact of life. Moreover, going on revised advice from Teagasc, nitrogen and phosphate usage has reduced by 40% since 1995. There is no doubt that the use of phosphates was more than liberal on some farms and that the use of nitrogen on some farms was over-liberal. Cost factors are helping to bring that into line, as will the nitrates directive.
I hope I will be forgiven for singling out Senator Dardis. He is a man of great competence. Before I ever heard of him I remember reading him in The Farmers Journal, when he was writing on agricultural matters. He was always a leading agriculturist. One could listen to his advice, take it and always know it was good. However, I must disagree with him tonight. I too am in favour of clean water and a clean environment, but I am also in favour of farming. I do not think Senator Dardis meant what he said.
John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am of course in favour of farming.
Peter Callanan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The nitrates directive has been in place since 1991. The purpose of the directive is to protect the water supply against pollution by agriculture. Sooner or later Ireland was obliged to implement the directive and comply with its provisions, and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has done so. The regulations to give legal effect to Ireland's nitrates action programme were signed by the Minister last December and came into effect on 1 February 2006. The provisions of the regulations will be phased in over three years.
I am pleased to note the constructive decision by the Minister, in consultation with the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, to defer Part 3 of the regulations, namely, the nutrient management section, to give Teagasc an opportunity to review the advice previously given on fertiliser limits. Both Ministers will consider the revised Teagasc material shortly and then make contact with the Commission with a view to seeking agreed changes.
Fine Gael has made comments which have caused confusion. It is not right for Fine Gael to attempt to disrupt and destroy a fine industry such as we have.
Ulick Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Senator quoted the Green Book and undermined it.
James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Senator Callanan is accusing farmers of undermining the environment. I am surprised at him.
Peter Callanan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I congratulate Senator Bannon on his success at the selection convention but he should not let it over-awe him, and keep quiet.
If I go to Johnstown Castle and get a soil analysis, and apply that according to Teagasc advice, giving the crop nutrient as required, there is nothing wrong with that in terms of science. We are told that Ireland is obliged to implement the nitrates directive and does not have an option to postpone its implementation now. We are also told that Ireland must face up to the reality that the nitrates directive is European law and must be implemented.
We do not want to pay the fines, and it would be outrageous for this Government to allow itself to be put in a position where it had to pay fines from taxpayers' money. The directive must be implemented. It affects agriculture as well as the taxpayer. The threat of a fine is not solely a financial consideration in Ireland. Failure to implement the directive would have a serious impact on a range of payments to Irish farmers. The Commission insisted on the undertaking that Ireland would implement the nitrates directive when the current round of rural development measures was approved in 2000. Failure to implement it would affect REPS payments, compensatory allowances and forestry, and put early retirement schemes at risk. Furthermore, the Minister is making a new proposal for expanded schemes and for Leader programmes. The single farm payment would be put at risk. The Opposition motion is asking us to put those payments at risk.
Peter Callanan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister cited a figure of €2.3 billion.
Ulick Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Senator Callanan is using the traditional tactic, the weapon of fear.
Peter Callanan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Money was allotted in the budget for the benefit of farmers to implement the nitrates directive. I ask Fine Gael to withdraw the motion and support the amendment and the Minister, because this is teamwork, which Ireland needs.
Shane Ross (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not claim any great knowledge of the nitrates directive. However, when I read the background I was very surprised to hear that the directive was first meant to come into force in 1991. It amazes me that it did not come into force much earlier and that successive Governments have resisted its implementation for so long. The reasons have been put forward by the Opposition in the motion. I condemn the motion because the Minister should be commended for hastening this in his early days in office, and the directive should have been implemented a long time ago.
It is not particularly easy for a Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to put such a directive in place because he is quite certain, particularly given the constituency he represents, to meet the sort of resistance which we are coming across in the House today. That resistance is purely opportunistic and panders to the farming lobby at the expense of the rest of us.
I commend the Minister on his action, because that is what ministerial office is about, while being in Opposition is, unfortunately, about creating trouble and difficulties for people who are taking decisions which they ought to take in those positions, even at a small political cost. I also commend the Minister on the speech he made because it seems he wrote his own speech, an unusual experience for Ministers speaking in this House.
Shane Ross (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Ministers' speeches are normally written in rather dull jargon produced by civil servants and backroom boys.
Shane Ross (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I was not here for the Minister's speech but there is a considerable amount of fairly convincing rhetoric in it. It is a tribute to this House that the Minister has taken the time to read the motion and reply to it in a quite robust fashion.
I see this motion very simply. It is an issue of a strong but diminishing farming lobby against an issue of water quality. Those of us who are not farmers cannot possibly afford to allow a small farming lobby to hold the Government, the rest of the nation and the environment to ransom on the basis that it will cost farmers a certain amount of money. God knows these guys have had plenty of warning that this was coming. It is no use for them to now state that they want to get out of the EU, to walk out of partnership talks and to make dramatic gestures when this has been coming for a long time. I understand the Opposition has to do what it has to do. However, the motion is an unrealistic piece of absolute and utter nonsense.
Were this directive to be postponed any further, my understanding of what I read this evening and in the past is that our water quality would remain endangered, low by European standards and unacceptable in terms of hygiene for everybody in the country.
Ulick Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Let the Minister take responsibility for his own area.
Shane Ross (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Opposition states it will put up with low water quality for everybody else——
Ulick Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What about pollution by local authorities?
Shane Ross (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——providing their friends in the farming lobby are looked after. That is not acceptable politics in this House. It is cheap politics to pander to this lobby for a short period of time and hope that everybody else will forget because the water cannot be polluted if no one can get it. The Minister has taken the right decision at some political cost.
Apparently, we are falling behind the rest of Europe in terms of water quality, and have been doing so gradually for approximately 25 to 30 years. That is not acceptable. It was time to call a halt to this deterioration in water quality. It is the height of irresponsibility to put this issue forward as some type of victimisation of the farming community. It is not acceptable politics and I commend the Minister on what he did today.
Farmers do pollute the environment. Let us spell it out and hear Fine Gael state it. Farmers are not the only people who pollute the environment but they do so. The EPA has found that they do so.
Shane Ross (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
They do a lot for the nation and for the economy. However, where they are polluting the environment, it must be stopped. I commend the Minister, the Government and all those who had the courage to introduce a directive such as this and enforce it in quarters in which it will be unpopular and difficult to do so. I support the Government amendment.
Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I wish to share my time with Senator Scanlon.
Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, and his officials to the House. I support the Government amendment. The Fine Gael spokesperson on agriculture in the other House has been quite active on television. The motion condemns the Minister, "for his failure to suspend the introduction of these regulations in light of revised scientific evidence". I did not think the Minister had received any scientific evidence yet. I wonder why it was included in the motion.
I compliment Teagasc on its work in agriculture down through the years. I always considered Teagasc an outstanding independent adviser to farmers. It has developed farming throughout the country. Teagasc advice, when taken on board by farmers, has ensured that farms have continued to be viable. It has been a pioneer in developing many farming enterprises in the past.
We are discussing fertiliser use and examining the type of fertiliser used on land. This will cause farmers to realise the amount of hundred weights of fertiliser they spread per acre. They will now examine testing the land properly to ensure that the required amount of fertiliser will be spread in keeping with the directive. They will continue to grow adequate crops.
We must recognise the tremendous developments that have taken place in water quality. We all recognise that this country depends largely on water sourced from underground. We can no longer take any risks with that water. We must recognise the contribution that farmers have made over the past number of years regarding the land and housing. They have ensured that contaminated water is no longer let into the ground.
Points were raised regarding the difficulty with record keeping. From what I gathered from the Minister's statement, the record keeping required is standard and if a farmer was not keeping such records he or she would not be able to continue in farming.
The Acting Chairman is indicating to me. I am sorry the time is short. I do not want to cut in on Senator Scanlon's time. I compliment the Minister on his drive to ensure the derogation is increased to 250 kg. It is 170 kg at present. The Minister stated on many occasions that as soon as he can and when this is cleared, he will move to get that derogation for farmers, which will allow them to make a living and continue to farm.
Eamon Scanlon (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Chairman. I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak on this issue. I will not state that Senator Bannon's motion is dishonest. However, I do not believe that in this motion he is being honest with Irish farmers.
Eamon Scanlon (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Excuse me, I did not interrupt Senator Bannon. I mean sincerely that we should be working——
James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We are dealing with people's livelihoods.
Eamon Scanlon (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I fully understand that. I am as well aware of the fact as Senator Bannon. I know the farmers in my area the same way that Senator Bannon knows the farmers in his area.
Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Senator Scanlon should address the Chair.
James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Senator is insinuating that farmers——
Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Senator Bannon should not address anyone.
Eamon Scanlon (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Honesty has been referred to and it is important that we, as politicians, are honest.
James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Government has never been that way.
Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Senator Bannon will have a chance to reply.
7:00 pm
Eamon Scanlon (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It has been discussed already today. We are sick of hearing about the length of time this directive has been around, since 1991. In 1996, Ivan Yates, Deputy Howlin and the IFA attempted to deal with what was an extremely contentious issue in the directive. At that time they suggested 170 kg per hectare. The Minister had no alternative to signing the directive. We must get that derogation up to 250 kg. Much of today's discussion was about dairy farmers. Many dry stock farmers also need the 250 kg derogation. At present, that derogation is at a standstill because discussions cannot take place. I believe that derogation can be achieved and must be achieved for Irish farmers.
Senator Coonan complained about the record keeping attached to the directive. I do not know whether he has read the requirements. They are extremely simple and include the total area of holding, storage capacity of the holding and an estimate of the annual fertiliser requirement. All of these are simple and any farmer could state the answers to the approximately ten questions off the top of his or her head.
Senator Bradford referred to the hands-on approach of the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan. The Minister ensured the increase in the grants for storage tanks. I know it is at a standstill at present. However, the only issue to be resolved is whether it can be drawn down over one year or three years. I hope it is three years because one year is not long enough to obtain planning permission and to provide the storage tanks.
I wish the Minister well and I know he has the interests of farmers at heart. This issue must be grappled with. I agree with the Minister that Senator Bannon should withdraw the motion.
James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I wish to give one minute of my time to Senator Ulick Burke.
Ulick Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Senator Bannon for sharing his time. I have listened to the Minister and he has taken responsibility for health, the environment and agriculture and has pontificated on all those areas. I want him to stop and think that he, as Minister, presides over a group of local authorities which has contributed more in one day than the farming community has done in ten years. Many of the Minister's colleagues have told this House that the farming community has been the greatest protector of the environment. The draconian measures introduced by the Minister will mean that people will be jailed for failing to keep receipts. If the Minister's party colleagues were jailed for non-availability of receipts for other activities our jails would be full.
Ulick Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Senator Bannon has shared two minutes with me.
John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Senator is not good at sums either. Does that leave Senator Bannon with one minute less?
Ulick Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister has taken responsibility for agriculture in the absence of any Minister. He took advantage of the former Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh, who was lackadaisical in his efforts to preserve farming communities. Some Senators behind me would have praised the former Minister for his stance on this issue. I suggest Senator Ross put on his wellies and visit some of the farmers in his county. He might then see what his suggestions would mean in reality. I ask that the Minister eliminate, not postpone, the draconian measures he has included without thinking.
James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We call for practical and workable nitrates regulations to be introduced. My motion deals with the issue that the Minister has failed to meet and negotiate with the farming organisations. The legislation introduced by the Minister is damaging and will not improvewater quality, which is the objective of the directive.
James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister has let us down. The farming organisations have informed me that he has not engaged in meaningful consultation with them. He was told that in Ballymahon in my county last week. He now blames farmers for the fact that the regulations are not being introduced earlier.
John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If one could not drink the water from Lough Owel the Senator would say something else.
James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister is playing funny tactics. Farmers across the country demand that this be resolved in a logical and scientific way as a matter of urgency. It is important to remember that this Government is trying to introduce by the back door a draconian new licensing system for farms and farmers. This is a diversion from the Government's promise following decoupling that it would give farmers freedom to farm. That will not happen under this legislation. The Minister should waste no time in getting himself out of the mess he is in but should act before it is too late. He should defer the introduction of his draconian legislation by bringing in amended legislation as a matter of urgency. Farmers and rural people are angry.
John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Not as angry as Senator Bannon.
James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This will cost the Minister many votes in rural Ireland. At last week's World Economic Forum in Switzerland, which the Minister attended, it was reported that water quality in Ireland is one of the best in Europe. It achieved 100% and was deemed equal with Sweden and Switzerland. The Minister continues to deny that fact.
The Dail Divided:
For the motion: 34 (Cyprian Brady, Michael Brennan, Peter Callanan, Margaret Cox, Brendan Daly, John Dardis, Timmy Dooley, Geraldine Feeney, Liam Fitzgerald, Camillus Glynn, John Gerard Hanafin, Maurice Hayes, Mary Henry, Brendan Kenneally, Tony Kett, Michael Kitt, Terry Leyden, Don Lydon, Marc MacSharry, Martin Mansergh, John Minihan, Paschal Mooney, Tom Morrissey, Pat Moylan, David Norris, Labhrás Ó Murchú, Francis O'Brien, Mary O'Rourke, Ann Ormonde, Kieran Phelan, Shane Ross, Eamon Scanlon, Kate Walsh, Diarmuid Wilson)
Against the motion: 16 (James Bannon, Paul Bradford, Ulick Burke, Paul Coghlan, Noel Coonan, Maurice Cummins, Frank Feighan, Michael Finucane, Brian Hayes, Jim Higgins, Joe McHugh, Kathleen O'Meara, John Paul Phelan, Brendan Ryan, Sheila Terry, Joanna Tuffy)
Tellers: Tá, Senators Minihan and Moylan; Níl, Senators Bannon and Cummins.
Amendment declared carried.
The Dail Divided:
For the motion: 35 (Cyprian Brady, Michael Brennan, Peter Callanan, Margaret Cox, Brendan Daly, John Dardis, Timmy Dooley, Geraldine Feeney, Liam Fitzgerald, Camillus Glynn, John Gerard Hanafin, Maurice Hayes, Mary Henry, Brendan Kenneally, Tony Kett, Michael Kitt, Terry Leyden, Don Lydon, Marc MacSharry, Martin Mansergh, John Minihan, Paschal Mooney, Tom Morrissey, Pat Moylan, David Norris, Labhrás Ó Murchú, Francis O'Brien, Mary O'Rourke, Ann Ormonde, Kieran Phelan, Shane Ross, Eamon Scanlon, Jim Walsh, Kate Walsh, Diarmuid Wilson)
Against the motion: 16 (James Bannon, Paul Bradford, Ulick Burke, Paul Coghlan, Noel Coonan, Maurice Cummins, Frank Feighan, Michael Finucane, Brian Hayes, Jim Higgins, Joe McHugh, Kathleen O'Meara, John Paul Phelan, Brendan Ryan, Sheila Terry, Joanna Tuffy)
Tellers: Tá, Senators Minihan and Moylan; Níl, Senators Bannon and Cummins.
Question declared carried.
Mary O'Rourke