Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The witnesses are more than welcome.

Before we begin, I draw attention to the fact that witnesses giving evidence within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means they have a full defence in any defamation action in respect of anything they say at the meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege, and if directed by the Chair to cease giving evidence, they should do so. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who give evidence from locations outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses, outside of the proceedings held by the committee, of any matters arising from the proceedings.

This session is to scrutinise the following legislative proposals: COM (2023) 495, COM (2023) 578 and COM (2023) 587. The witnesses from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine will give evidence regarding all three. The witnesses are Ms Sinéad McSherry, Ms Suzanne Brennan, and Ms Anna O'Sullivan. They are all more than welcome and have five minutes in which to make a presentation on the three Commission proposals.

Ms Sin?ad McSherry:

I thank the members for the opportunity and invitation to speak to them today on fishing opportunities. I am the assistant secretary with responsibility for seafood and the marine in the Department. I am joined by my colleagues, Ms Suzanne Brennan, head of the marine programmes division, and Ms Anna O'Sullivan, head of the sea-fisheries policy and management division. Before I go into the detail of the Commission proposals highlighted by the committee, I will give a brief overview of the process for setting the fishing opportunities for the EU fleet.

Most of the commercial fish stocks of interest to the Irish fleet are covered by the total allowable catch, TAC, and quota system. Following the UK's withdrawal from the EU, 40 of the fish stocks in which Ireland has an interest, which were previously exclusively Union resources, are now shared resources under international law. Only two small stocks – plaice and sole in ICES area 7 b–c, off our west coast – for which Ireland has a quota are regarded as EU-only. Mackerel, blue whiting and Atlanto-Scandian herring are agreed upon at coastal state negotiations. The TAC for albacore tuna is set through the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.

The European Commission has sole competence to negotiate with third countries on behalf of the EU on the setting of fishing opportunities. The negotiations of significant interest to Ireland are coastal states, EU–UK, EU–Norway-UK, and EU–Norway. The process for the negotiations is as follows: the EU Council sets down a mandate for the negotiations. Member states are kept closely involved throughout the negotiations. Meetings between the Commission, Council secretariat and member states are held regularly during the negotiations. Member states are kept fully briefed by the Commission and advised of progress and, in turn, input their positions and concerns through these co-ordination meetings. The Commission also undertakes to keep stakeholders informed of the progress of the negotiations. Once agreement has been reached, for example, between the EU and UK, the Council must consider and approve the draft written record of the negotiations before it can be signed by the Commission on behalf of the EU.

The Minister, Deputy McConalogue, met stakeholders throughout the negotiation process. He also undertook a sustainability impact assessment, SIA, as part of the preparation for the TAC-setting process. The SIA draws its conclusions from a consultation process with all major stakeholders and expert contributions from the Marine Institute and Bord Iascaigh Mhara. The objective of the SIA is to consider the overall impacts that the proposal could have on the sustainability of the fishing sector from biological, economic and social perspectives. The Minister also met other stakeholders, including fishing industry representatives and environmental NGOs, to give a further opportunity to stakeholders to outline their positions. He presented the SIA to this committee on 25 October 2023.

Regarding the Commission proposals highlighted by the committee, I will begin with COM (2023) 587. This is the proposal for the "main" TAC and quota regulation for 2024, covering the stocks found in the north Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea. This includes the stocks found in the waters around Ireland. Where the scientific advice for a stock has not yet been received, or international negotiations for stocks are ongoing when the proposal is published, the fishing opportunities for those stocks are marked as pro memoria in the proposal. As these negotiations had not concluded when proposal COM (2023) 587 was published, most of the fishing opportunities were listed as pro memoria.

In previous years, as the EU-UK negotiations had not concluded by the deadline set out in the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, provisional TACs and quotas had to be agreed by Ministers at the December Fisheries Council. This was to ensure continuity for fishing fleets pending the outcome of the negotiations. However, this was not necessary this year as all third-country negotiations concluded in advance of the December Council, meaning the final, full-year quotas would apply from 1 January 2024.

The coastal state negotiations for 2024 took place in October and the coastal state parties agreed on setting the TACs for coastal state stocks of mackerel, blue whiting and Atlanto-Scandian herring. The EU-UK negotiations for 2024 began on 24 October 2023 and the written record was signed by both parties on 5 December. The trilateral negotiations between the EU, UK and Norway began on 20 October and concluded on 8 December 2023. The bilateral negotiations between the EU and Norway began on 7 November and concluded with the agreed record being signed by parties on 8 December.

The final outcome of the TAC-setting process for 2024 represents a balanced result overall. Ireland has increases for a number of its important commercial stocks, including prawns in the Porcupine Bank, Celtic Sea monkfish and megrim and north-west haddock and whiting. Restricted, by-catch-only TACs have been set for vulnerable stocks to help them recover. Most significantly, the Minister successfully negotiated a permanent allocation of additional mackerel for the Irish fleet, worth approximately €3 million annually for Irish fishers.

COM (2023) 495 relates to an amendment of the 2023 TAC and quota regulation to set the definitive TAC for anchovy in waters off the coasts of Spain and Portugal and waters around Madeira and the Canary Islands. When the 2023 TAC and quota regulation was adopted, the scientific advice for this stock had not yet been published, and a provisional TAC had been set to allow for fishing to continue. This proposal did not impact Ireland as we do not have a quota for this stock.

COM (2023) 578 relates to setting fishing opportunities for stocks in the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea for 2024. Ireland is not involved in this proposal as it does not have fisheries in these areas.

I hope this information has been helpful. My colleagues and I will be happy to take any questions members have on the proposals.

Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for being with us today. Fishing is a very difficult subject. Witnesses from the National Inshore Fishermen's Association were before us earlier and they painted a very bleak, shocking picture. I would appreciate it if the departmental officials replayed the proceedings and listened to the facts.

One would like to say the facts should not be on the ground. The fishermen do not want to be on the ground. They cannot go out to sea because of so many issues, including stocks, and there being no competition. They do not have a brown cent to put food on their tables. There is no system in place to compensate these inshore fishermen. They have a strong voice. In terms of the Irish fleet, an estimated 75% of all fish caught in Irish seas are caught by non-Irish fishing boats. In other words, the Irish fishing fleet is allowed just 25% of the 1.2 million tonnes of fish that are caught in Irish waters each year.

The under development of the Irish fishing industry has hit isolated rural communities very hard, particularly along the coasts where other sources of employment are limited. Without work, people are left with little option but to move to cities or emigrate to other countries. Comparable non-EU countries, like Norway and Iceland, have taken much better advantage of their fish resources and developed not only vibrant fishing fleets but also major spin-off industries in areas such as food processing and boat building.

A properly developed and managed fishing industry could contribute billions of euro annually to this economy and provide much-needed employment to isolated rural communities. A developed fishing sector would help provide much needed balance in an economy that is currently over-reliant on US multinationals. In order to achieve this we need a Minister who will prioritise the needs of the fishermen.

In fairness, Ms McSherry mentioned COM (2023) 587. With no disrespect to her, what was said sounded like a foreign language. Why has the Minister not succeeded in getting quotas? He will say that he did get some little piece extra in, I think, the mackerel quota before Christmas but nothing significant has been seen to come our way. Brexit took as much as it could away from us a couple of years ago and our fishing stock was handed out.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry for interrupting the Deputy but a vote has been called. Are any of the committee members paired for this vote? Yes.

Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of information, I am told that there are 15 votes.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The voting bloc has not been reached. A vote has been called on the Gas (Amendment) Bill.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I gather that next will be the voting bloc.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, not immediately. I suggest that the committee meeting is suspended because continuing is not fair on Deputies who might want to comment again. One vote has been called but is not the voting bloc.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Over the last three years, this committee has always worked through votes, through Seanad and Dáil votes, where appropriate. There is a member who is willing to contribute and is not paired, so I suggest that the meeting continues, otherwise we will be here until 12 midnight.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will back in ten minutes.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is no problem. I apologise to the witnesses for the interruption. Deputy Fitzmaurice has ten minutes.

Ms Sin?ad McSherry:

In preparation for today, my focus has been on the Commission's proposals but I will briefly discuss the nature restoration law. The law is a significant development. It requires significant interaction between all of the people involved in operating at sea. The main issue for us is to ensure that cognisance is taken of existing operations, whether that is fishing at sea, and any measures that are taken. Again, my Department is not the Department responsible for the implementation of the NRL.

Ms Sin?ad McSherry:

We would engage heavily with the lead Department in order to look at any issues arising from the nature restoration law and its implementation.

Ms Sin?ad McSherry:

Our Department has engaged with the lead Department. The Deputy is correct to say that the targets are very ambitious and their delivery will be complex.

I think the Deputy mentioned the potential economic impacts on our industry. The consultation is ongoing and the obligation is on member states to put in place nature restoration measures on at least 20% of their seas by 2030. Officials in my area, with the advice of the Minister, have engaged with the other Departments responsible. I am not in a position to go into any detail as I do not have it with me today.

Ms Sin?ad McSherry:

I am not clear on the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media. My team has met the team from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, which is leading out on this matter.

Ms Sin?ad McSherry:

I envisage that any of the measures Ireland has to take will have to be considered and applicable. I have not looked at any of the individual measures at this point so I am not clear about what burdens will be placed on fishers. I am clear in the sense that we will have to work with our industry to implement any measures that are necessary.

Ms Sin?ad McSherry:

As the Deputy mentioned, bluefin tuna is a highly migratory stock. It spawns in the Mediterranean and then migrates all over the north-east Atlantic to feed. Ireland does not have a national quota for bluefin tuna. The only way to obtain a share of the EU quota would involve changing the relative stability key within the European Union.

That would require a majority of member states to agree under the qualified majority voting system to reallocate some for Ireland. Ireland has a small by-catch of bluefin tuna and that is primarily for use in our albacore tuna fishery and the Celtic Sea herring fishery where there can be by-catch and one needs to account for that under the landing obligation.

The Minister has on several occasions over the past number of Councils made a case to reopen that allocation key in order to secure a quote for Ireland. As the committee can imagine, naturally, that is resisted by those members which hold a quota at the moment but it is something the Minister has addressed regularly and will continue to push for at EU level.

Ms Sin?ad McSherry:

All of the fishing opportunities are dealt with in the context of sustainability and ensuring future stocks for future generations of fishers. All quotas that are determined by Council are in the context of scientific advice on how to fish those.

Within the Irish system, there are several policies that have been determined by the Minister and are published on how that quota is distributed between the fleet and that has to take into account a number of factors. Any changes to those policies would be a matter for the Minister.

Ms Sin?ad McSherry:

On policy matters, it is a matter for the Minister.

Ms Sin?ad McSherry:

In respect of any changes to policy, the Minister would have to go through a rigorous process that includes public consultation. It is not a matter of a stroke of a pen. There is a full process which includes a full public consultation and review of scientific data. All of those matters would have to be considered by the Minister in making his policy, but that is a policy matter.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will come back to Deputy Fitzmaurice. The time is up.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have ten minutes. I will come back to the Deputy.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Fitzmaurice. I can come back to him if I am caught.

First of all, I thank Ms McSherry for her presentation. I will start on the proposals in reverse order. On COM (2023) 578, relating to the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, would it be true that we never fish out there?

Ms Sin?ad McSherry:

We do not operate a fleet out there. We have no fishing opportunities out there.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was thinking that the last time I was there. That is the first one gone so.

On COM (2003) 495, would it be true that we would have limited fishing out there, to say the least?

Ms Sin?ad McSherry:

COM (2003) 495 is in relation to the waters of the Spanish and Portuguese coast and around Madeira and the Canary Islands and the Irish fleet does not fish for anchovy in that area.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms McSherry very much. That is two of the three issues put to bed in a very short space of time.

Let us be fair, the other proposal is the serious proposal regarding where we are regarding the North Sea, etc. Could Ms McSherry possibly elaborate on that? Of all the three proposals, and I do not know about the first one there, the other ones remain probably where we are. Could Ms McSherry elaborate on Norway and third country involvement in this negotiation and how that happens as it is an issue that comes up about how Norway has access to our waters? What do we get in return, etc., so that we can get a better understanding of how the third country element ties into this proposal and the negotiation practice?

Ms Sin?ad McSherry:

The European Union is one with coastal states that look at fishing opportunities in shared waters. For example, there is the EU, Norway, Iceland, Greenland, the Faroes, Russia and the UK. There is a number of states which all share waters in the north-east Atlantic. In those situations, obviously, there is advice issued in respect of stocks and the available stocks and then the EU negotiates with those other coastal states in relation to determining the level of stock to be fished and then the share-out of those stocks. The Commission has the competence. It has the sole competence to negotiate with other third countries. In the EU-Norway situation, the EU and Norway, either as coastal states or in direct negotiations, will look at stocks of common interest and areas of common interest.

The question the Senator may have asked is about Norway and the EU and access to the EEZ.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Ms Sin?ad McSherry:

On the exclusive economic zone, there are several within the EU. They are waters for which the EU can negotiate access to. A lot of fish stocks are migratory. They do not tend to stay in the one place. Fleets have to move with the stock at times in order to have access to them and that is what those negotiations are about. Equally, some of the negotiations are about the distribution and the allocation of the relevant stocks.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have often heard what Norway gets in the negotiations from the European Union side. What does the European Union get from Norway on that side of the negotiation?

Ms Sin?ad McSherry:

From the EU's perspective, the EU fleet gets access to Norwegian waters and some of their quota. I will defer, if I may, to my colleague, Ms O'Sullivan, who is more familiar with this particular topic.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely.

Ms Anna O'Sullivan:

The EU-Norway bilateral agreement dates back to the 1980s when it was first put in place. There are a few layers to it. One is that there is an exchange of fishing opportunities. Norway gives the EU a share of arctic cod quota and in exchange the EU provides quota of various stocks. The one of interest to Ireland would be blue whiting. We do not have a quota share of the arctic cod. Blue whiting would be an important stock to us and it is always an important issue in the negotiations to keep that level of blue whiting as low as possible. Both this year and last year, it was kept to a minimum at below the cap this year of 7.4% of the global - that would be the total - blue whiting TAC.

Another aspect of the EU-Norway agreement is, as Ms McSherry mentioned, there is access for EU fleets to Norwegian waters to fish for Atlanto-Scandian herring. There are also other aspects for stocks in the North Sea that would be caught by member states that operate in the North Sea.

There are also other agreements that go alongside that EU-Norway relating to a neighbourhood agreement with Sweden because of its proximity, and also how the fisheries are managed in the waters around Sweden and Denmark in that area called the Skagerrak and the Kattegat which Ireland does not have an interest in because we do not operate there. Our main interest would be in the EU-Norway main agreement which deals with the blue whiting transfer and the level of access for ash.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have often heard commentary that they make up their own quotas or the quotas are quite fluid in Norway. There is scientific evidence on how we control our stocks. Is there ever a concern about making sure we are not in a scenario where we could be overfishing with the potential that Norway may be involved in changing its own numbers?

Ms Anna O'Sullivan:

At the moment, there are no sharing agreements in place for the coastal state parties' three main stocks of mackerel, blue whiting and Atlanto-Scandian herring. Negotiations have been ongoing for a year or more so that the coastal state parties, which are, as Ms McSherry mentioned, the EU, the UK, Norway and so on, can come to an agreement on sharing arrangements. In the case of mackerel, our most important pelagic stock in Ireland, there had been a sharing agreement in place between the EU, Norway and the Faroe Islands since 2014. After Brexit, in 2021, Norway broke from that agreement and set its own unilateral TAC. The Faroese followed suit and set themselves a national quota that was higher than what the quota had been in the past. The Minister has stated very strongly that this is unacceptable and that measures need to be taken to address it. He has frequently addressed this issue at EU level.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms O'Sullivan is basically saying that the scientific evidence we base our quotas on is not being adhered to by Iceland or Norway.

Ms Anna O'Sullivan:

The lack of an agreed sharing arrangement means that total catches are above the total allowable catch. The total allowable catch is set in line with scientific advice and has been for a number of years but, without a sharing arrangement, that can be exceeded, which is obviously not good for stocks in the long run. That is one of the reasons the parties are pursuing negotiations to agree new sharing arrangements.

Ms Sin?ad McSherry:

If I may add to that, the key tenet of the Common Fisheries Policy is to ensure sustainable fisheries. It is EU policy to fish within the MSY and to ensure the sustainability of the stock.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In Ms McSherry's contribution, she mentioned an additional €3 million annually for the Irish fisher. That relates to the additional mackerel quota. Will she inform us what tonnage that has regard to? How can we get an idea of the tonnage in the quota?

Ms Sin?ad McSherry:

The tonnage for mackerel is 1,769 tonnes for 2024. It is over €1,600 a tonne.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay, I was just trying to put it in tonnes. I am very conscious that I am caught for time. My last question is slightly off-topic. I apologise for that and, if the witnesses do not have the answer, that is very fair. On our national policy regarding landing fish, we have a national policy regarding fish but, to some degree, you can land the fish wherever you want. You can go to Norway or to Scotland, for example. We do not have a policy as to how much of the quota our fishers land in Ireland. I know that is slightly outside the remit of today's meeting. What I am getting at is that, as regards our quota, we may potentially have more landings outside of Ireland than at Irish ports.

Ms Sin?ad McSherry:

To ensure I understand the Senator's question, is he asking about the fleets of other EU member states?

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I am talking about Irish vessels.

Ms Sin?ad McSherry:

Irish vessels are landing in other member states and other countries. They are perfectly entitled to land within the EU.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are we talking about Norway, Northern Ireland and the UK?

Ms Sin?ad McSherry:

We have an agreement with Northern Ireland on quotas so Irish fishers can land their quota there. I will have to ask Ms O'Sullivan about Norway.

Ms Anna O'Sullivan:

There are certain requirements, depending on the stocks you are landing. You may need to land into a designated port, depending on the stock and the amount you are landing. While I am not a control expert, in general, there are no restrictions on landing into another EU member state or non-member state, so long as you comply with the requirements that are in place regarding designated ports and so on.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The vote in the Dáil has finished and I would say other members will be back shortly. Senator Paul Daly has indicated that he wants to speak. No, he does not want to speak on this issue yet.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is slightly outside of the agenda. The witnesses do not have to answer if they do not want to.

Ms Sin?ad McSherry:

That is not something we are prepared to speak to today. We prepared based on the agenda.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fair enough. I apologise, there is another vote. Unfortunately, we will have to suspend for a period of time until we have a quorum again. There is another vote in the Dáil.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

All of the members present have asked questions. I thank the witnesses for attending. They were very helpful and clarified many issues for the committee. We will now suspend briefly before inviting the next group of witnesses to appear before the committee.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will now hear from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine on COM (2023) 416. I welcome both witnesses. I will start by reading the note on privilege.

Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that a witness has full defence against any defamation action about anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chairperson's direction. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made about an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who are to give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter.

I call Mr. Medlycott to give the opening statement.

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

I am a senior inspector in the nature and land use division in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I am joined by my colleague, Mr. Niall Ryan.

I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to address the committee to contribute to discussions on the proposed directive on soil monitoring and resilience, the soil monitoring law, and its implications for the agricultural sector. The Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action considered the EU legislative proposal on soil monitoring and resilience at its meeting on 30 May last. The Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, the lead Department in relation to this proposed directive, engaged with that committee at the time.

Agriculture and forestry are Ireland’s dominant land uses, responsible for shaping approximately two thirds of our total land area. A core component of land is soil. Soil is a finite resource, meaning its loss and degradation are not recoverable within a human lifespan. The health of agricultural soils is crucial not only for sustainable food production but also for the provision of many other ecosystem services, such as water filtration, carbon sequestration, flood regulation and habitat, for most living things and their food. It is, therefore, a highly valuable natural resource but it is often overlooked. Ensuring that we sustainably manage soil is key to strengthening the resilience and regeneration of our soils. The EU Commission estimates that more than 60% of European soils are unhealthy and scientific evidence shows this is getting worse. The unsustainable use of EU natural resources, in particular the degradation and pollution of soils, is a major driver of the climate and biodiversity crises. Our soil hosts at least 25% of biodiversity on the planet. It is the foundation of the food chain and the largest terrestrial carbon pool on the planet. However, soils do not receive the same level of legal protection in the EU as air and water. The European Parliament, other EU institutions, stakeholders and citizens have therefore called on the Commission to develop an EU legal framework for the protection and sustainable use of soil.

The Commission first proposed a soil framework directive in 2006. This EU-wide legislative approach on soil protection since the establishment of the EU was subsequently withdrawn. Due to the lack of common EU legislation, member states have tried to address soil health issues such as degradation and erosion at a national level. Nevertheless, as these are global issues, there remained a call for a common EU-wide solution to further strengthen efforts to improve soil health. In November 2021, the European Commission presented the soil strategy for 2030. This strategy provides a new vision for soil anchored in the EU biodiversity and farm to fork strategies. It sets out a framework and concrete measures to protect and restore our soils. On 5 July 2023, the European Commission published the proposal for a directive on soil monitoring and resilience, the soil monitoring law. This proposal was developed from the results of EU soil expert meetings held by the Commission throughout 2022.

The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is working closely with colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications representing Ireland on the EU soils expert working group. The two Departments also engage with colleagues in Teagasc, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, the Environmental Protection Agency and Geological Survey Ireland on these proposals. The long-term objective of the proposed soil monitoring law is for all soils across the EU to be in a healthy condition by 2050, as outlined in the soil strategy. To achieve this ambitious goal, the proposal provides a common definition of what constitutes a healthy soil and lays down measures on monitoring and assessment of soil health, sustainable soil management and remediation of contaminated sites.

Under the proposed directive, member states will be required to regularly monitor soil health and land take within soil districts to be established throughout their territories. The proposal includes elements to increase knowledge and data availability on the health of soils, including agricultural soils, and to maintain or improve soil functions, including the production of food, feed and biomass. The proposal does not impose direct obligations on landowners or land managers, including farmers. The proposal sets out certain principles to be respected when defining sustainable soil management practices at member state level but does not define the specific management practices to be applied or restricted. Importantly, this proposal gives authorities and soil managers the flexibility to choose the most appropriate soil management practices and how to apply them. These principles will be determined by taking into consideration specific local, climatic and socioeconomic conditions, land uses and soil types and existing knowledge on what works best for our farmers and society.

In addition, there is a requirement for authorities to promote awareness of the multiple benefits of sustainable soil management, promote research and implementation of soil management concepts and make available an updated mapping of financial instruments and activities to support the implementation of sustainable soil management. The proposed directive requires member states to set up a mechanism for a voluntary soil health certification process for farmers and other land managers. This voluntary soil certification process should be complementary to a carbon removal certification process. This voluntary certification process may provide opportunities for landowners to be rewarded for good soil management practices that maintain soils in a healthy condition.

The proposed directive on soil monitoring and resilience is the subject of ongoing discussions at the Council working party on the environment under the Belgian Presidency. Increased recognition of the critical importance of healthy soils is welcomed and every effort will be made to ensure that the directive provides long-term benefits to our environment, farmers, other landowners and wider society.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to discuss the proposed directive and I am happy to answer any questions.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Medlycott for his comprehensive statement.

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

There is a slight change in how they set out whether soil is healthy or unhealthy. The proposed directive originally said the soil should be healthy or unhealthy. I understand those were the two definitions. To be healthy it had to meet all of the criteria set out in the annex to the directive. It has now changed slightly because we have had our first revision to the directive, which was circulated in mid-January. It has moved to a more graded process. There are designations of good, moderate and poor. Good meets all of the criteria in the annex. Moderate can be missing or failing one of the criteria. Poor means it fails on two of the criteria set out in the annex. That is where it is now. We were supporting that change to the directive because it was a binary thing about whether the soil was healthy or unhealthy. There is now more flexibility around that.

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

The directive is allowing and stating that member states should have a voluntary soil health certification process for farmers and other land managers. That shall be linked to the carbon removal certification process. They are complementary.

Mr. Niall Ryan:

No. I go back to the Deputy's first point. The soil monitoring law is looking at the physical, chemical and biological properties of soil. The voluntary health certificate will be optional for member states.

Mr. Niall Ryan:

We are at an early stage in negotiations. I was at a meeting about this in Brussels on Monday. We are currently working off a draft proposal put forward by the Spanish Presidency. We are on revision 1 of the document. While we agree in principle with the directive, everything within this is still under discussion. Member states have been asked to submit their comments. It is early days in the negotiations.

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

That is the ambition of the directive.

Mr. Niall Ryan:

The peatlands-----

Mr. Niall Ryan:

This directive is looking at all soils and at the ecosystems-----

Mr. Niall Ryan:

It is a soil that can provide as many ecosystem services as possible.

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

You could be farming on it.

Mr. Niall Ryan:

The soil monitoring law does not specifically refer to the peat soils per se. It does not set out any specific actions with regard to peat soils. Where peat soils are referred to is in the nature restoration law.

Mr. Niall Ryan:

That is the ambition.

Mr. Niall Ryan:

That is still up for negotiation and comment. The question was asked at the meeting the other day. If a soil is in moderate status, is that considered acceptable? We do not have clarification on that at this point.

Mr. Niall Ryan:

That is by 2050.

Mr. Niall Ryan:

The Department is currently working on updating a peat soils map of the country.

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

I do not think that has been completed yet.

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

I am not sure of that either.

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

Part of the measurement will be on the basis of NPK and a range of other chemical properties.

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

It sets out that you have soil districts within the member states. That could be at the nomenclature of territorial units for statistics, NUTS,regional level. It could just be on a national level for Ireland. It is down to the member state whether it wants to bring that down further into lower levels.

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

The directive sets out in the annexe the kinds of things being measured.

Mr. Niall Ryan:

Yes.

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

When the measurements are taken on that soil, they will be assessed against the criteria in the annexe as to whether they are meeting the criteria.

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

It does not necessarily have to meet the criteria in respect of being peatland as it was 50 years ago. It has to meet the good soil health condition in its current status and may well continue to meet that status in the new farming system layout. There are opportunities for the member state to determine what soil management practices should be in place for different types of soils. That determination is made at member state level. For soils that have been drained, it does not necessarily mean we have to restore them all to their previous condition.

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

I understand the point the Deputy is making. What I am saying to him is the status or condition of the soil and the farming practices taking place on that soil may mean that it will still be allowed to continue.

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

Under the soils monitoring resilience-----

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

That poor rating has to come up to favourable status by 2050. That is the ambition of the directive. The criteria that land has been determined to be poor on, and failed on, will determine the actions that must then be taken.

Mr. Niall Ryan:

It is the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications.

Mr. Niall Ryan:

First, we have yet to define the districts. That is under discussion. We are not going to get down to individual farmer level-----

Mr. Niall Ryan:

Second, we must set out the detail. A number of physical, chemical and biological tests have been proposed in the proposed directive. Currently, member states are looking for flexibility around the number of tests they will have to carry out under this directive. I refer to flexibility in respect of whether we will have to do all these tests, only some of them or if we can do a suite of them. Regardless of the type of soil, if we have flexibility around these tests we will be looking at the physical, chemical and biological properties. Thresholds have also been set out in relation to these tests. If the results are over or under a threshold, that gives rise to the status of land. The tests do not get into what happened on land before this directive. If land meets, for argument's sake, a bulk density test, a phosphorous test or is biologically active, then the soil could be deemed as being of improved status. If it does not, then farmers will be asked to take steps and a number of practices. Many of our farmers, we must remember, are looked after under CAP. They are looking after their land.

Mr. Niall Ryan:

Yes, but many of the practices we are carrying out under CAP are promoting good soil practices in relation to this directive.

Mr. Niall Ryan:

I did not say that. What I did say was that farmers currently receiving the single farm payment are respecting a number of good agricultural and environmental conditions. Many of those are contributing to good soil management. These would align with what this directive is trying to propose in respect of ensuring land is managed in a certain way to result in it being maintained to a good and healthy status. This is not linked to farm payments.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can we go around to more contributors? I will then come back to Deputy Fitzmaurice.

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

I do not think those aspects have been finalised. That is good agricultural and environmental condition, GAEC, 2 that the Deputy is talking about and it has not been finalised what is going to be included in that yet.

Mr. Niall Ryan:

It is to come into effect in 2026.

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

It is in 2025.

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

Yes, I think we will have to have agreed to it, but it is not my area of responsibility.

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

Yes. The dates referred to have been introduced as the latest dates possible.

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

There is an alternative view that all those regulations will provide opportunities for farmers as well.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a few questions of my own and maybe other members will arrive after the vote in the Dáil.

I compliment the witnesses on the presentation they gave. This matter was sent to the Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action, which is the lead committee in this regard. Is the Department of agriculture the lead negotiator on this issue with the Commission? Are Mr. Medlycott and Mr. Ryan the two men who go over or what team is involved?

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

The Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications is still the lead negotiator, but Mr. Ryan attends the meetings.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How many are involved in the team dealing with this?

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

On our side there are three, namely, me, Niall and another person dealing with this directive. Then there are a number of people within the Department of the environment dealing with it.

Mr. Niall Ryan:

We have a wider stakeholder group as well, which we consult. It includes colleagues in the Department of agriculture, forestry, Teagasc, the EPA, the Geological Survey of Ireland, the NPWS and soil experts. We have a wider group we circulate this document to and we are taking feedback on their comments.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A fear we have is when there are multiple Departments involved in a legislative proposal. We had the water framework directive, which started in 1991 and was led by the Department of Housing. It had a huge impact on the agriculture industry through the nitrates action plan. There is, therefore, a fear for committees like ours and the communities we represent about having multiple Departments involved and whether there will be conflict within the Department about getting the right result for the agriculture committee. One of the lines in the opening statement was "The proposal does not impose direct obligations on landowners and land managers ...". Will the officials explain that statement to me and how we are going to ensure this directive will not impinge on landowners or land managers and their land rights?

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

The proposed directive is done at a member state level, so the samples are taken. It is still at early stages and there are ongoing negotiations on this but the intention is that samples will be taken from throughout the soil districts. However, it will not impact on the person who owns the land on which those samples were taken in any way. They are just representative samples representing that district.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In that case, Mr. Ryan might explain to me his comment regarding the single farm payment and how those practices are affected. I am trying to work out what implications this will have for the individual farmer. If we are taking an entire district into consideration, are we going to have individual farms judged based on the district and how they need to change farming practices or how is it proposed this is going to work?

Mr. Niall Ryan:

This is still up for discussion.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that.

Mr. Niall Ryan:

However, as Mr. Medlycott said, whenever it is decided what our level of districts will be and the sampling procedure for those districts, the individual farmer will not be identified within that. Our reporting back on this is just representing the district, but those samples will be reflective of that district.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Some of this will come down to the member state as well and how it implements the regulation. Have the officials thought about who will be taking the samples and what body will be responsible for the taking of samples? Are they looking at Teagasc, the EPA, the Department of the environment or their own Department? What entity do they believe will be making that report to the Commission? If we look at other directives, for example, the water framework directive, we have had multiple submissions going in yearly. We have Teagasc making its submission on the catchments programme and the EPA has done its report. Can the officials give an indication of what they believe will be the format for reporting to the Commission?

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

There has not been detailed consideration of that yet. As Mr. Ryan says, a lot of these things are still for discussion. At the last meeting on Monday, it came out from the Commission that there could be more than one competent authority in each district, so there may be a competent authority for some elements of the directive and then another competent authority for other elements. As well as the things we are talking about today related to agriculture, contaminated sites are also covered within the directive, so that area will probably not fall within the Department of agriculture's remit. It is more likely to be for the EPA or the Department of the environment. They might be the competent authority for that part and our Department might be the competent authority for the parts related to agriculture but we have not got into detailed discussions on that, as I said. The directive is still at an early stage.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Fitzmaurice and I, as well as two other members, were with the European Commissioner last September. One of the criticisms he had was that there were multiple reports coming back regarding the water framework directive. The Commissioner said it was unclear what the Government was looking for because there were two Departments, Teagasc and the EPA all rowing in with their view. We are, therefore, concerned about who the monitoring body is as having multiple monitoring bodies has proved to be ineffective in ensuring we get to our goal here.

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

The Leas-Chathaoirleach's point is well made. Governance arrangements around how the directive is implemented will be very important.

Mr. Niall Ryan:

Whatever final criteria are agreed, there will have to be an accredited test done in an accredited laboratory. Something still up for discussion is sampling depth, so there is a lot of this that is still in the discussion phase. In agriculture we normally take samples to a 10 cm depth, but it is not yet clear what the sampling depth will be with this.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I take it the sampling regime being proposed will take in the entire land mass of Ireland, so we will be looking at all the agricultural land, our islands to some degree and also our urban centres.

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

Yes.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can the officials give me an indication of what has been proposed in our urban centres regarding quality of soil? If we look at where we are with our issues regarding our urban settings at times, trying to ensure we reach the standard could be an issue. We could put a plan in place for agricultural settings but with urban centres, I would be concerned about the contamination in that soil and how a plan could be put in place to ensure that reaches a good standard.

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

The threshold will be the same across all soil types, but the soil management practices promoted for the soils in urban centres may be different from those promoted for agriculture. Again, those practices have not been set out. There are a number of years after the directive before all that has to be put in place.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are the officials worried we could sign up for the directive and our urban centres could be the sting in the tail when it comes to trying to ensure we qualify as having good soil quality? Have there been any negotiations at a European level regarding the officials' engagement so far? Our urban centres are quite moderate in size in a European context. I am sure other countries will have huge issues regarding urban centres. Has there been any engagement at European level about how we can find an appropriate way of dealing with our urban centres?

Mr. Niall Ryan:

It has not come up in discussions yet. We are not privy at the minute to what member states have sent back their comments on. There were a number of meetings on this directive in November in quick succession and then, as I said, the text we are working on at the minute, referred to as rev 1, was put together by the Belgian Presidency before that finished up.

Member states were asked to comment on that text so we are at the starting point. I imagine that has been brought up to the Presidency in respect of those questions, but it has not come up in discussion to date.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Ryan said we are at the starting point of this negotiation. There is a European election happening and in the next four or five months a new Commission President and definitely new Commissioners. If they have it, will the officials outline the pathway for this proposal going forward, taking into consideration the changes to the political landscape that could change in the next few months?

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

As Mr. Ryan outlined, there are a number of meetings. There will be two meetings every month between now and May on this directive, as I understand it. The Belgian Presidency has proposed it. In the initial meetings, quite a lot of issues have been raised by member states, so I cannot say at this stage whether this will bring it to a conclusion. If it does not, it is at a stage that if it does not get through with the current parliament, it will start again.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is kind of where I am going and it is probably my ignorance of the actual process. If it is not completed by May, does it go back to the start of the process again or where does it go? Do the conversations and negotiations Mr. Medlycott is talking about begin again in September at the same level?

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

It will be for the next Commission to decide how we should proceed with this. The soil strategy is there and is a longer-lasting document. This is part of the process to try to implement the soil strategy.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

From our point of view, when the Dáil is dissolved whenever it is going to be dissolved in the next few months, whatever legislation and committee hearings are set will just fall and it is up to the new Dáil to start proceedings at the start again. It does not matter what level we are at regarding negotiations, we go back to the start and the clock starts again. That is my point. Do we go back to the very start again in September if it is not passed by May?

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

It is probably for the Commission to decide, but if there is a directive taken to a stage most member states are happy with, one would imagine they would continue with that negotiation, but not necessarily.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. I just was not aware.

Deputy Fitzmaurice wants to come back in again.

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

We have welcomed, as I said, the change from the binary of "healthy" versus "unhealthy" to "good", "moderate" and "poor". That was a proposal we supported at the early stages. We have some concerns around the cost and how it will be financed and all that. There are concerns around that.

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

How it is all going to be paid for. Article 17 sets out the union financing of it without much detail, so we would like further details.

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

It will cost money to carry out all this sampling and analysis.

Mr. Niall Ryan:

That is correct. It is privately-owned land.

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

As I said previously, the sampling is carried out at a range of sampling points across the member state.

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

If the sampling is required by the directive, which will come into force by national legislation, we will have to work out how the sampling is carried out. I go back to the point that the sampling is done on a range of things. That is at a member state level. That information is provided. It is not that an individual farmer whose sample is taken has to do certain things and nobody else has to do anything. It is that those samples identify the issues with the soils in Ireland, if there are any, and sustainable management practices are promoted within Ireland to try to address those issues identified through the national sampling programme. Then we will sample again and do the same in a number of years again on a range of sample points across the country. Currently, it is taken that should be done every five years, though that might be changed, and there will be a measure of whether we have improved or not. If we have not, further measures will have to be promoted to try to promote sustainable soil management.

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

There are penalties, but as I said, there is a lot of discussion around those and things and we are at a very early stage in this. It is a directive-----

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

Everything is still being discussed by member states.

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

We have had the directive that was published and now we have had, as Mr. Ryan said, revision 1 of it which was discussed just this week for the first time.

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

As I said earlier, the Belgian Presidency has set out that there will be two meetings a month between now and May and its hope is we will have some level of agreement on the directive at that stage but I cannot anticipate that. That is as far as we can say at this stage.

Mr. Niall Ryan:

Yes. We are just not privy to what member states have sent in for clarifications.

Mr. Niall Ryan:

We know what we have put in-----

Mr. Niall Ryan:

-----but we are not finished yet because we sent back a number of comments about some of the tests and the text and wording in the text but we will get another chance again. There will probably be another revision sent around again some time in February and we will get another chance to go through that again and make our concerns known. Some of them were raised during the meeting on Monday by member states when they had an opportunity. Some member states just raised one or two issues but said they had many more in their comments back to the presidency. They will all have to be looked at.

On the timeframe, this has come up a lot during the meeting in terms of the five-year timeframe. Many member states felt reporting after five years was not sufficient because with many of the tests for soil carbon or bulk density, a change will not be seen in that time.

That has been put forward. Many of them have been asked to be pushed out to seven and ten years but we will not know until we get the next text. While this is ambitious, many member states understand. The test that has to be carried out is quite technical. However, that is why we are liaising with our colleagues who have more expertise in this than us.

Mr. Niall Ryan:

Our colleagues in Teagasc who are continually working with soils and have a long-standing history of soil sampling and soil tests. Many of these are straightforward tests be carried out and we have a history of doing these tests and will not be afraid of doing any of them.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Deputy proposing to make up the parliament for Europe?

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise, gentlemen.

Mr. Niall Ryan:

I cannot really speculate-----

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

I am not sure of the process.

Mr. Niall Ryan:

It will have to go to the Council.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just before we finish up, because I realise we will be running over time, can I ask a few questions? In the fourth paragraph of the opening statement, it is mentioned that the EU Commission estimate that more than 60% of European soils are unhealthy. Where did it come up with that data from? Has it started a process of testing soils and if so, where does Ireland fit into that? Are we above or below the 60% threshold mentioned in this?

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

There is work done by an organisation established called the EU Soil Observatory and it is doing work on this based on the best available information that is out there currently, though the directive proposes there be better information out there.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Where is Ireland so?

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

Generally, our soils are considered to be relatively healthy but there are issues around soil sealing, some of the soil compaction issues, and there are some nutrient excesses in certain areas and things like that as well. Most of the soils are at the better end of the scale in respect of the measures they have taken, but not all of them.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Of the 60% of unhealthy soils, could we say Ireland is 30% unhealthy soils?

Mr. Niall Ryan:

We do not have figures to say that but, as Mr. Medlycott said, the European Union has the joint research centre, and there are a number of initiatives going on in Europe around soils. There is the Horizon programme and there is this European EGP on soils in which Ireland and 26 other member states are partaking. It is carrying out a number of research experiments around soil and soil health and all that information is being fed back into the EU Commission.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there any way we can get our national figure regarding what has been stated by the Commission about that 60%? Is that information gathered at some stage?

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

We can come back to the Leas-Chathaoirleach on that if there is some figure available on that. The EU Soil Observatory has dashboards of different criteria such as soil erosion and soil compaction. I do not have an overall figure. I do not know where those overlap-----

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It could be very helpful because I think-----

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

We can send the Leas-Chathaoirleach the link to the EU Soil Observatory dashboard and the information in that as to where Ireland fits in against measures. At the moment, we have good information around chemical properties of soil in Ireland and there is ongoing stuff but we have less information around biological properties and things like that and that is an area where we are going to need further work in Ireland and across other EU members states as well.

Mr. Niall Ryan:

The technologies have advanced substantially in testing, that is, carrying out physical, chemical and biological tests.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When it comes to the soils we are talking about here, such as the breakdown between forestry, agriculture, urban, they will all be part of the criteria of testing. Would I be right in saying that?

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

Yes, the Leas-Chathaoirleach is right in saying that. A number of issues have been raised by a number of members states around forestry soils and how well they fit in with these measures-----

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would be a concern-----

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

-----and that has been raised.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and how to actually deal with that then because I am not sure what practices could be changed on the forestry part of the island regarding what we are doing at the moment.

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

That is the subject of ongoing discussions at EU level as to how we deal with the forestry and there is currently no pathway proposed but it may be that there will be different criteria regarding forestry soils.

Mr. Niall Ryan:

A number of member states have brought it up at the meeting that they would like to see forestry soils excluded from this but we have made comments around this to that effect as well. We have concerns over forest land. We have made that known in our comments.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would be very hard to put a management plan in for the forestry process there at the moment for a five-year period anyway. It would just be nearly impractical.

My final question is about what area this falls under in the European Union?

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

DG Environment.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the Commissioner that Deputy Fitzmaurice and myself saw.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

After our previous conversation last September, a conversation we should have is about re-engaging with that Commissioner directly ourselves. Some of us got on quite well with him and others did not and we should use that opportunity to build our relationships again with him. I know he is probably on a pathway out. From talking to many, he was very clear he might not be around after June but for now it is something we should perhaps consider. We might put on the agenda for the next private meeting about engaging with that Commissioner directly again. Is Deputy Fitzmaurice finished?

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses very much indeed.

Mr. Tom Medlycott:

We work closely with our colleagues in the other Departments and have good working relationships with them.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Deputy Fitzmaurice, for your commentary. I thank the officials for coming in. We might, at some stage in the next few months, have the opportunity to have them back to give us an update on these negotiations. We realise this is an issue that is changing rapidly but, on the other side, they will be meeting their counterparts twice a month. Significant progress will probably happen in the next few months in particular because the time could be ticking in that the Commission could be stepping down.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We might, maybe in a few month, ask them to come back. I thank them, Deputy Fitzmaurice and the staff.