Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind members and witnesses to turn off their mobile phones. I bring to their attention 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 that a witness has a full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in that regard. I remind them of the long-standing practice, as is reasonable, that no adverse comment should be made against an identifiable third person or entity.

Witnesses giving evidence from locations outside of parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity in legal proceedings as witnesses giving evidence within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take advice in this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to their publication outside of the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.

The purpose of the first session of today's meeting is further scrutiny of EU legislative proposal COM (2024) 139, a proposal for a regulation on agricultural and environmental condition standards, scheme for climate, environmental and animal welfare, amendments to Common Agricultural Policy strategic plans and review of CAP strategic plans, CSPs.

The committee will hear from the following officials: Ms Sharon Murphy, acting assistant secretary, EU and international trade, Ms Corina Roe, principal officer, CAP strategic plan division, and Mr. Michael Moloney, senior inspector, integrated controls division, Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I welcome them. I will allow five minutes for the opening statement and then proceed to this evening's question and answer session.

Ms Sharon Murphy:

I thank the committee and the Chair for the invitation to speak today regarding the recent Commission proposal to amend the legislation covering the CAP strategic plan, or the simplification proposal as it is called. I am assistant secretary with responsibility for EU and international affairs. My colleague, Ms Corina Roe is principal office for CAP strategic plan division and Mr. Michael Moloney is senior inspector from our integrated controls division.

I will go back to set the context. The CAP strategic plan is a five-year programme covering the period 2023 to 2027. It includes both direct payments and rural development measures. Ireland’s plan has a budget of €9.8 billion over this period. Of this, approximately €1.8 billion has been paid out to date. That equates to an average payment of approximately €15,000 per farmer but of course individual payments vary. Payments for the first year of the CSP are ongoing and cases are cleared weekly. However, there is no doubt that this first year of the current CAP has been challenging for farmers and the Department alike. The extent and the pace of change involved has been significant. It has presented a challenge for all concerned. The current CAP has introduced new rules on performance reporting, new systems for area monitoring and an increased focus on improving environmental sustainability. In this context, farmers across Europe and in Ireland have been highlighting the many challenges they are facing, and the difficulties in managing these when considering climatic and economic conditions.

The Commission listened to this and responded to farmers and member states concerned. They proposed this package of simplification measures to benefit both the farmers and the administrators. The proposed simplification will not satisfy all the concerns of farmers. However, the package amends the basic regulation of the CAP strategic plan to reduce the burden on farmers and it provides additional flexibilities to member states to respond to issues affecting farmers. The Commission has taken a targeted approach to provide flexibility while continuing to maintain a clear focus on the economic, environmental and social objectives set out in the CAP regulation. The changes are also designed to address issues across the EU, so certain provisions are not as relevant in the Irish context. The main changes relate to the simplification of the conditionality rules and the introduction of a new initiative to exempt small farmers from inspections and penalties.

I will deal with small farmers first. This is a mandatory element of the proposal and is effective from the publication of the legislation with immediate impact. Small farmers with an agricultural area of 10 ha or less will no longer be subject to inspections for conditionality and therefore will not be subject to any financial penalties under the CSP for failing to meet the conditionality requirement. This is a simplification for up to 20,000 farmers in Ireland. who will not be inspected or penalised under conditionality. It is important to note that these farmers must still comply with the statutory management requirements, for example, the national legislation on nitrates or environmental legislation. They also remain subject to mandatory inspections outside of the CAP, such as veterinary inspections for animal welfare. Farmers with 10 ha or less will continue to be subject to monitoring by the area monitoring system and to controls for CAP schemes outside of the basic income support for sustainability and for any national schemes. This change will apply to claims made in 2024. Farmers with more than 10 ha will still be subject to conditionality controls and penalties arising.

Other changes to conditionality relate to the good agricultural and environmental condition standards, or GAECs as they are more commonly referred to. There is a change to the scope of the GAEC 8 standard, which is intended to protect the maintenance of the non-productive features to improve on-farm biodiversity. The mandatory requirement for arable land to maintain 4% non-productive area is removed and member states must introduce a voluntary eco-scheme to support this objective. This change is more relevant for other member states with large arable areas and there will be little practical change for farmers in Ireland due to our high level of hedgerows and landscape features, which will still be protected under the amended GAEC 8. Ireland had already chosen to implement an eco-scheme to support space for nature. It is a popular option for farmers, and we already have this in place. On GAEC 7, the change allows farmers to comply with the standard through crop diversification or crop rotation. Some flexibility is also introduced to adjust the GAECs, in limited circumstances, to address issues arising from climatic conditions. This will be useful in a year such as this, where we could provide limited temporary derogations to farmers if they are impacted by climatic or weather conditions, which affect the timing or execution of GAEC standards. The proposal also introduces some additional flexibility around the setting of GAEC standards for the protection of soil, which are GAECs 5 to 7, inclusive, and GAEC 9 to allow member states establish specific limited exemptions. Those exemptions will be subject to certain conditions and must continue to deliver on the objective of each standard. However, some of the requirements in the GAECs, particularly GAEC 5 and GAEC 6, come from the nitrates regulation and are not covered by the simplification proposals.

There are some changes on the administrative side, with a doubling of the number of amendments we can make to the plan, and a change whereby assessments of whether new environmental legislation should impact the CSP will no longer have to be conducted from 2026 onwards. This amendment has moved through the colegislation process in a much faster time period than is usual, with limited time for consideration. It was subject to the urgency procedure. It has now been agreed by Council and the European Parliament and is expected to be published by the end of May. Some elements such as the 10 ha exemption from conditionality controls, inspections and penalties are applicable for the 2024 claim year. Other elements can only be implemented by way of an amendment to the CAP strategic plan. I trust this has provided the committee with a high-level overview of the changes introduced to the CSP through this proposal. My colleagues and I welcome questions in this regard. The Commission has indicated it intends to continue working on this issue of improving and simplifying matters for farmers. In this regard, a range of other issues are under consideration at expert group level. Consideration of the next CAP, post 2027, has started at EU level and further simplification is expected to be a central feature of this process.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Murphy for an expert statement. It is clear and her explanation is easily understood. With regard to the 10 ha exemption, other European countries will benefit from that more than Ireland. Percentage wise, some European countries have a lot of farmers with areas under 10 ha. Does Ms Murphy have those figures?

Ms Sharon Murphy:

I do not have the precise figures, but the Chair is correct. A number of member states have a large number of very small farmers. In Ireland, it is approximately 15% or 16%. It could be as high as 65%. I know it is 56% in Spain. It is a larger percentage area. The simplification there is from the point of view of the administration of those really small farms of 1 ha or 2 ha. They are very small indeed in places like Romania and Poland.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am surprised there are 20,000 here. I would not have thought the figure would be as high.

Ms Sharon Murphy:

Our assessment of the statistics we have shows it would be 20,000.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the representatives of the Department for appearing this evening. There is not a whole lot to ask. They have everything in here, and it is what it is. We are not going to change it now.

On the GAEC 8 changes, I will be 60 shortly. CAP has been around a long time and I have been listening to talk about simplifying CAP for as long as I remember or understood or knew what it was. It never seems to happen. It is said that every CAP negotiated is going to be simpler but it ends up getting complicated, more through bureaucracy and what is expected of the farmers in respect of getting their applications in and ticking all the boxes.

Regarding the proposed changes mentioned, especially concerning GAEC ones, what would a farmer have to do in this regard? The first thing I thought when I was reading this information about the need to prove your soil type is X, Y or Z was to wonder if tests, and an adviser, will be required to do so. Can Ms Murphy see there being further bureaucracy and paperwork involved in what is being given the headline of "simplification"?

In the end, it was said that this can be retrospective for 2024. How soon will we know this? While it was said work is already under way on potential, possible and hopeful simplifications for CAP post 2027, does Ms Murphy have any idea in what direction this might go? Anything that is a simplification or advantageous to the farmer is always very welcome, but this whole process came on the back of the protests in Brussels. Without being flippant about or critical of the changes - indeed, I welcome them - at the same time, there is very little in these changes. I am surprised the protesters were satisfied with them. Given the elements of the protests I saw, if these changes got them to go home, is there anything else that might be forthcoming from this process? As I said, it is welcome, but it just does not seem like a whole lot as the compromise to stop the protests I witnessed occurring in and around Brussels.

Ms Sharon Murphy:

First, I agree with the Senator on the issue of simplification. It is the continual elusive thing we are all looking for and it seems harder to get to. Regarding farmers and their concerns, as I said, some elements of this proposal will have a much bigger impact in other member states. With large arable areas, the changes in GAEC 8 are quite significant for them. It is certainly something that has been very much welcomed for farmers in those areas.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the 4% requirement?

Ms Sharon Murphy:

Yes.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that they do not need to meet the 4% requirement anymore?

Ms Sharon Murphy:

Yes. It is the removal of that obligation.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This would have been an issue for large arable farmers who did not have hedgerows prior to this change.

Ms Sharon Murphy:

Yes, exactly. It would very much have been an issue for them. Our farming system is different, so this alternation is very significant for them. Otherwise, the whole process of simplification is intended to continue. The Commission has done surveys and Irish farmers have contributed to them. The next stage of this process is to meet and interview individual farmers. The Commission has said it wants to continue looking at this issue to try to address matters from the perspective of farmers.

Regarding the discussion on the next CAP, it is early days for it but Ministers have met and considered matters like this. There is a strong viewpoint that we must ensure we continue this simplification process and try to keep a focus on it. It has been the objective before but has not been realised. We must now really focus on it as we move forward. We would expect to see the next initial proposals on the CAP in mid-2025. These would be written proposals at that stage. We are, therefore, examining this aspect. In terms of the other GAECs, on the soil, that is GAECs 5 and 6, and so on, I am not anticipating any need for sampling in this regard, but I ask Mr. Moloney to confirm this point.

Mr. Michael Moloney:

On GAECs 5, 6, 7 and 9, no soil testing will be required. We do not envisage any requirement in these cases. GAEC 7 covers crop rotation. The change here is most certainly welcome since it gives the farmer an option to meet this GAEC standard with crop rotation or, as in this case, with the option of crop diversification. We very much think this is going to simplify the controls compared to what we have now. GAECs 5 and 6 deal with tillage and arable land and, in relation to GAEC 6, livestock. What this is allowing us to do is to bring in temporary exemptions. This is a bit like what we did in 2024 concerning GAEC 7 and crop diversification. We introduced force majeure exemptions because of the wet harvest, which led into the spring and seed shortages. We implemented force majeure measures, therefore, to allow farmers to sow one crop or ten crops, whatever it was they were able to do to get crops into the ground, which is what we wanted to happen. This temporary exemption allows us, in a case where we were to end up in another bad harvest situation, to bring in certain exemptions. These could include the requirement to have to put in cover crops by 15 September. In the case of conditions being bad, it would allow us to extend this date, so that ability gives us this degree of flexibility. We absolutely do not envisage any extra burden here. The simplification here is actually probably removing the burden.

To answer the Senator's first question concerning why other member states did things, in the preamble to the regulations, in the context of this amendment, there is a reference to 65% of farmers in Europe having less than 10 ha. Effectively, then, 65% of them are now outside a control system and the associated penalties. In Ireland, our farms are larger than 10 ha and the figure in this regard is 15%. This is the exact figure based on our analysis of the last three years, because this is the best way for us to have looked at it based on the basic income support for sustainability, BISS applications. It was 20,000, up or down 400 or 500. In effect, these farms are outside conditionality controls, inspections and penalties. From this perspective, the change is welcome.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have one final question. If the change is welcome in the context of simplifying things for farmers from the Department's perspective, for the farmers themselves, this change is coming mid-stream. I am not being critical when I say this but just stating a fact. Payments were late and the answer given was that this happened because of the Department's computer system and technology and because it is a new CAP. Now that the Department has got up to speed with this aspect, will the goalposts be moving in any way with these changes? Will it simplify or complicate things more for the Department?

Ms Sharon Murphy:

No. I think any of the flexibilities we have will help us and not hinder us. These additional flexibilities to move dates and deal with this element will be beneficial. We do not, therefore, see these changes hindering the process. We see them all as positive and believe they will work well for us.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To ask a follow-up question, 15% of farmers are being taken out of the inspection regime. Are we still holding them to a 5% level of inspections, or whatever the level is in this regard? If this is the case, for those who are left, the likelihood of inspection will be greater. Has the level of inspections dropped accordingly to correspond with the people taken out of the inspection regime?

Ms Sharon Murphy:

It has. The point to clarify first is that it is 1% for conditionality inspections.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. I am sorry.

Ms Sharon Murphy:

It is 1% in that regard. Basically, therefore, it will be 1% of a smaller population. We will not impact, then-----

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. It is not a figure but a percentage.

Ms Sharon Murphy:

Yes.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. I am sorry, that was my misunderstanding. That is fine. I call Deputy Kerrane.

Ms Sharon Murphy:

In terms of the payments system, yes, when a new CAP process is introduced, a range of new rules and regulations must be put in place. The current CAP had a large number of changes made to it in terms of how it would operate. It did require, therefore, a lot of amendments to be put in place on our systems. It is, though, a new CAP and a new world. We had to look at how we would make payments as quickly as possible under that new system, and we did this. We opened our systems for applications in February 2023. We closed those on 29 May.

That is two weeks later than normal. That was because of the additional workload involved in those. We advised farmers as soon as we could, in March 2023, about the payment dates to give them certainty. Changes in the payment dates caused concern for farmers but we have been working through that process and are on track to not have the same issues occur. It is a totally different system with different monitoring and different performance reporting. We have been building and putting that into place. That is now there. We expect our payments for ANC will be back again in September 2024, as in previous years, and that from 16 October, the normal payment date, the usual payments like BISS, CRISS and the eco-scheme and all the new direct payments will be in line with previous years.

Ms Sharon Murphy:

It has been extremely successful because it has allowed for correction of matters by farmers and has reduced the need for visits. I will let Mr. Moloney go through the detail of that.

Mr. Michael Moloney:

Area monitoring has been an improvement on what was traditionally - I think the Chair referred to it - a 5% inspection. Inspections for land eligibility checks were done by remote sensing, which was using satellites, and, classically, on the ground. In 2023, we moved to 100% monitoring so more than 1 million parcels were monitored systematically. As a result, fewer farmers were held up regarding payments in the new system of AMS than in the previous.

I will provide some figures on the level of red parcels. There is a traffic light system: green was nearly 73% of all parcels last year; amber or yellow was almost 27% - yellow means there is an issue but no stop or hold-up in payment; red, which was the notifications we sent out to farmers, was 0.68%. That is the starting point but expert judgment is another layer where we can view the imagettes taken. That is a weekly set of images. After that stage, we were down to 0.01% red parcels. As a result of 100% monitoring of more than 1 million parcels we were down to that level.

Where there is a red notification, clearly the AMS detects something. I was involved in explaining this to farmers. There was a media campaign, webinars, clinics and information sessions last year. There was a misconception we had a wall of computers in front of us and were looking into the farmer's yard to see him calving cows or spreading slurry. It was not like that and we availed of the opportunity through "Ear to the Ground" to show much of this is computer generated. The computer determines what is there. For example, in March this year we sent out notifications on 1,700 parcels where we detected, in advance of their lodging a BISS application, artificial surfaces: house sites, farmyards, roadways, etc. The purple dot marks the spot where we think something is there. In some cases, it is a house site. It could be bare soil around the farmyard where there was excavation and that is clear. Farmers will make adjustments to that, hopefully, in their BISS applications.

On 6 June this year, we will tell farmers who did not make adjustments "Here's a red notification" so they can go in and make the amendments. We have a round in July and August where a farmer could have inadvertently declared one crop but we find something different. The big advantage is the farmer, up to 15 days before we start payment - this year it will be 3 September - can go in, accept or reject the finding, send in a geotag photo - in other words, change it completely from protein crop to grass - and there is no impact on the payment. A number of years ago when an inspector went in and a farmer had been claiming a protein crop which attracts an additional payment, that farmer would have not received payment and would have had a penalty. Now the facility is there to accept human error. They make the change and submit the geotag photo.

We had a 92% response rate last year, which was fantastic. Some 37% of responses submitted geotag photos. Some of them might have accepted what we said but did not send in the photo. Sending in the photo takes that parcel out of monitoring. We want to minimise that parcel coming out in subsequent rounds. Once we have a photo and are happy with it, it is clear. The only time we go on the ground with area monitoring is where a photograph is submitted and they say "No, it is protein crop" or "It is barley" but the photograph is not clear it is a crop. We go to ground to verify it. Whether it is barley, wheat or oats, generally there is not an impact on payment but the claim from the beneficiary has to be right.

Last year, AMS was rolled out for BISS, CRISS, ANC, the protein aid and the straw incorporation measure. It was mandatory in 2023. We are now rolling it out to the likes of ACRES and eco-schemes where we can. The agri-stamp app we have will be enhanced as we learn about its use and about making it easier for farmers to use. Much of the interaction last year was with the advisor and the planner.

Ms Sharon Murphy:

With regard to Article 120, if environmental legislation is introduced elsewhere, the CSP is meant to look at whether schemes and proposals under the CSP are meeting the objectives of that legislation. That has happened already with certain legislation and we have done it, but our position on the CSP is that when farmers sign up to schemes, they need to know what they are signing up to and have certainty over the coming years. We see it as beneficial for farmers not to have changing requirements as other legislation comes through. That does not mean we will not consult with them on all the CSP changes. In the changes on GAEC, etc., we have a robust monitoring committee system with all the farm organisations on it and a wide range of other stakeholders. Any proposals we make, we talk to them through that process. We also have an informal process with a stakeholder's forum where we engage.

The Deputy mentioned GAEC 2. We have used that informal process to engage with our stakeholders on that.

On GAEC 2 itself, that was something we initially intended to bring in for 2024 and then decided we basically did not have enough time. We postponed that until 2025, which as the Deputy says, is the date in the regulation. We continue to engage with the Commission on this constantly but we engaged with our stakeholders and then we promised our stakeholders we will go back to them and engage before there is any further consideration of that. That is our commitment to them. We will be doing that.

Johnny Mythen (Wexford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a few questions. I am not sure whether the witnesses can answer this one. Regarding the briefing we got on the discussion at EU level, it just said that Germany abstained. Do the representatives from the Department of agriculture know why it abstained? On the next steps, I wonder why the Department may have a public consultation, as opposed to simply having a public consultation.

Ms Sharon Murphy:

On the issue of Germany, it was concerned that potentially, due to the very tight timeframe this proposal came in, that the process was concertinaed. Normally, any change of co-legislation is usually a year and a half, at a minimum and impact assessments are usually done. Germany was concerned about that, that the process had not been followed through properly due to the really tight nature of the timeframe. However, it is necessary to move ahead with the fast timeframe because the Parliament is only there for a certain while and will rise shortly. We all had to agree to have that tighter consultation. In terms of public consultation, that is really if there is any requirement to do that as a result of the strategic environmental assessment, SEA, process that takes place after amendments of strategic plans. It is not always necessary to do that, as it is dependent on the outcome of the screening. Again, I emphasise that all our stakeholders are fully consulted on any changes and possible amendments to the CAP strategic plan, both through the monitoring committee and the steering group as well. They are always very well-consulted.

Johnny Mythen (Wexford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the mandatory changes, I am confused because one time the GAEC said the requirements for all farmers to have 4% of nature was a key component to the green architecture of the CSP and that it will be a mandatory aspect of the amending regulation, yet on the other side it said the mandatory requirement for arable land to maintain 4% non-productive areas is removed and that member states must introduce a voluntary eco-scheme to support this objective. I am wondering what that means. It is saying one thing-----

Ms Sharon Murphy:

I apologise if that is not clear. The original language in the GAEC says 4% for arable land. That was the original language which was included, that one had to set aside 4% of one's arable land. When we introduce that GAEC in Ireland, it is 4% for all land. The Commission has since changed the language of the text and that mandatory 4% for arable land is being removed from the text.

Johnny Mythen (Wexford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the budget, which is €9.8 billion, the Department has spent €1.8 billion already. Is there a full implementation plan to use that full amount of money because very often, especially when it comes to the European Union, we see that the funding is not drawn down and is returned back, which is a shame because that is what it is there for, to protect farmers?

Ms Sharon Murphy:

There is absolutely a full plan to spend all of that over the time period.

Johnny Mythen (Wexford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are only two years left. It is-----

Ms Sharon Murphy:

The money can be spent after that as well. We have until the end of the period plus two years. When it finishes in 2027, we can keep spending under that pot of money until 2029.

Johnny Mythen (Wexford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry, the Department did not make that clear either. It states 2023 to 2027.

Ms Sharon Murphy:

I apologise. It is an EU accounting rule.

Johnny Mythen (Wexford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It has gone down to five years in this period.

Ms Sharon Murphy:

Yes. We do have time to spend it and we certainly plan to spend it all.

Johnny Mythen (Wexford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the criteria for payments on the CSP, what are the criteria for payments? The Department has said different farmers get different amounts. How does that work out?

Ms Sharon Murphy:

It depends a lot on the details of the specific payment. Perhaps Mr. Moloney will go through the details of the main payment, which is the largest one.

Mr. Michael Moloney:

The BISS has been carried forward from the basic payments scheme, which started with the single-payment scheme, SPS. I am going back to decoupling in 2005. Basically, farmers have entitlements. It depends on the entitlements a farmer has and their value. If a farmer has 50 entitlements, he or she must have 50 ha of land - whatever they are valued at - that is his or her payment. If a farmer only has 20 ha or 50 ha but only ten entitlements, that farmer is only paid on those ten entitlements for BISS. However, for an area of natural constraint, ANC, a farmer does not have any entitlement. It is paid up to 34 ha. If a farmer has 34 ha, he or she receives the maximum. There are different rates of payment depending on the categorisation of the farmer's land. The CRISS is paid on 30 ha. It does not matter whether a farmer has 330 ha, he or she will be paid on 30 ha. It is front-loading, in effect, of a farmer's first 30 ha. It has an impact on farmers with 30 ha, who receive the maximum. There are some other schemes, such as the sheep improvement scheme, which is based on a farmer's reference numbers from the census. The suckler carbon efficiency programme, SCEP, is based on a farmer's area. It is also animal-based to establish a farmer's reference period, as such. BISS was based on the entitlements, which was an average of the years 0001 to 02. Obviously, we then have convergence, which brings the entitlements down if they are over the average and brings them up if they are below the average, to 85% by 2026.

Johnny Mythen (Wexford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the backlog on the CSP claims at the moment?

Mr. Michael Moloney:

On the Pillar 1 schemes, the BISS CRISS, we started paying the balancing payments on 16 October. The balancing payments went out in December. Basically, there are issues to be resolved with any case that has not been paid by now. In that respect, there is no backlog of payments in Pillar 1. We are on target. Again, regarding Deputy Kerrane's point, to make payment in certain cases, for example, for BISS, it is stated in the legislation that by 1 December, we cannot - however, by derogation, we can pay no sooner than 16 October. We will hit the button regarding this for BISS this year. The ANC is 18 September. As we sit here now, that is our planned date. There is no indication we will not have a problem with that date.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chair. I am sure the witnesses are following the European elections with interest and wonder about every candidate they see who says they will get rid of red tape and make the process much simpler. I often wonder whether they have seen the simplification proposal. I am sure the witnesses will not comment on this but I wonder whether they roll their eyes to heaven or whether they agree with the candidates when they hear that. As the officials who have the mandate to manage this in Ireland, were the witnesses invited to make submissions or proposals to simplify the process? Did they make submissions?

Ms Sharon Murphy:

As I said, it is a very concertinaed process. The Presidency did invite member states to give their views on what they would like to see. We did that at the time. However, they were submissions to the Presidency, as such. It is not the same as speaking to the Commission. We were not invited by the Commission, but we were invited by the Presidency and we gave our views to them.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Did the Department make a number of submissions on that?

Ms Sharon Murphy:

It was discussed at Council a number of times. There were conversations at council on this point a number of times.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Did anything in the Department's submission end up in the final document?

Ms Sharon Murphy:

Within GAEC 7, there is a request we had asked for. As I said, this is an ongoing process.

Further meetings, for instance, will take place in June to look at the implementing regulations that come out of that. We will be engaged in that process. Discussions have taken place about other issues, such as what we call genuine human errors and dealing with those. We are still discussing all of those points. It is an ongoing process, and we will continue to engage with the Commission on that basis. Engagement is constant, to be honest, and does not only relate to this proposal but is something we always do. We are still discussing those particular issues and administrative points.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In keeping with the simplification theme, I am sure that Ms Murphy can empathise to a large degree. She mentioned human error, and that is a big thing for farmers. Many farmers, particularly smaller farmers, do not have the skill set to do this and may be dependent on family members to help. What changes should be made? What would Ms Murphy like to see to facilitate and assist farmers in the ongoing process?

Ms Sharon Murphy:

The particular issues I have mentioned would be directly beneficial for farmers. While we may say that what is proposed is the start of the road, 20,000 farmers have moved out of conditionality penalties, which must be seen as a simplification for them. Another process of the new CAP, the area monitoring system, AMS, which has been described, has resulted in a sort of process whereby people can be better managed through these applications. Those kinds of practical things are beneficial.

We are a long way from discussing the details of the new CAP but as I said, the focus is on the need to keep things simple and make things clearer. We also need to ensure that farmers are involved and central to the consideration, and that they understand the debate. We work hard to try to assist farmers in the discussions of the monitoring committee and in practical ways, such as through the clinics we run when we are getting to the end of the basic income support for sustainability, BISS, process, to help them in the final stages of the application. It is important to have those structures, as well as the big political debate. We need more on-the-ground assistance for farmers and we try hard to balance that.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will ask Mr. Moloney about the 20,000 farmers who are excluded from inspections for conditionality. Is there a saving to the Department in that respect? What is the average cost of those inspections?

Mr. Michael Moloney:

We would not have a cost.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is a ballpark figure?

Mr. Michael Moloney:

I could not guess.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would it be thousands?

Mr. Michael Moloney:

I would not think so. We stack inspections. We have the sheep improvement scheme but also now have a national sheep welfare scheme. We anticipate massive overlap between those two populations. When we select for the sheep improvement scheme, if we can, we will do the national sheep welfare scheme as well. We are doing multiple inspections at a time on the one farm to reduce the number of gates we cross. I would say it has been a considerable amount of time since the true cost was looked at but it certainly would not be thousands.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The concept of exempting farms of less than 10 ha is good. How did the Commission happen across the 10 ha? Farmers in Ireland are largely compliant, are used to following and are environmentally focused. Was there not an opportunity to make the case that the exemption should be extended beyond 10 ha in Ireland? That size would still be considered significantly below that of the average small family farm. In the interests of simplification, one would think that should be pushed out. Is there an opportunity within the process to push the size of the farm out further?

Ms Sharon Murphy:

When the Commission is putting forward the size of farms, there is an issue, as I said to Deputy Mythen, about looking at the environmental impact. It has to consider how much of the land area is being take out of conditionality inspections and the possible implications of that. That is why the Commission hit on that figure. It is about the balance of the objectives to simplify as much as possible while also ensuring the maintenance of environmental ambition.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It still seems an arbitrary figure. Following that through, it would mean the Commission would have to look at every farm individually to come up with that figure and I do not think it could have done that. The 10 ha still seems an arbitrary figure. That would mean the Commission had to look at each farm to assess the environmental impact. I cannot see how it could or would have done that.

Ms Sharon Murphy:

The regulation always provided for what is called a small farmer scheme for farmers across Europe. The limit was 5 ha, and anybody with 5 ha or less already fell into the simplified system. The Commission was looking at exemptions and increasing the amount of land concerned but not increasing it by too much. It is related to the original assessment, which would have been done at the start of the CAP strategic plan. That was for 5 ha at that time.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there any possibility that it will be extended beyond the 10 ha?

Ms Sharon Murphy:

As I said, discussion is ongoing. The Commission has to look at the implications of all of these considerations, but I would not anticipate another proposal in the immediate future. It is unusual to amend a basic regulation for the CAP. Regulations usually remain in place and unchanged for the seven-year period. It is unusual for the Commission to have done that. Of course, the upcoming Parliament elections will mean a new Commission and all of that. We will be moving into a new work plan and programme in Brussels, and it is unlikely there will be further movement. As I said, the implementing and delegating Acts that come out of the basic regulation are yet to be discussed. At expert group level, there may be further discussions but I do not anticipate any at the moment.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the exemption was moved to include farms of 20 ha, how many farmers would benefit?

Mr. Michael Moloney:

I could not tell the Deputy. We looked at 10 ha. When the proposals were drafted, we looked straightaway at the numbers involved. If the limit moved, considerably more farmers would benefit. I can dig out that figure and come back to the committee. I can crunch the numbers and come back to the committee, if that would be okay.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would appreciate that.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming in and giving the committee an extensive briefing. They answered our questions. There has been progress on simplification and we hope more can be made. It is the first time we have seen farmers being excluded from, rather than included in, the inspection regime, which is welcome. I thank the witnesses for their explanations and briefing.

Given that the committee has now concluded further scrutiny of COM (2024) 139, I propose that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Furthermore, I propose that there are no subsidiarity concerns with this proposal. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On behalf of the committee, I thank the witnesses for their contributions.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before we begin, I wish to bring to everyone's attention the fact that witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to a committee. This means that they have a full defence in any defamation action for 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 Chair's direction. 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 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 within the parliamentary precincts. They may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to publication by them outside the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from these proceedings.

The purpose of this section of today's meeting is for the committee to undertake an examination of further scrutiny of EU legislation proposals, namely, COM (2023) 411, a proposal for a regulation on plants obtained by certain new genomic techniques and their food and feed; and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/625.

The committee will hear from the following officials. From the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, we have Dr. Barry O’Reilly, head of crops policy, evaluation and certification division and Mr. Cara Mac Aodháin, agricultural inspector. From the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, we have: Mr. Eoin Deegan, principal officer, environment policy division. From Teagasc we have Dr. Ewen Mullins, principal research officer, head of crop science department. They are all very welcome to this evening's meeting. Each organisation will have five minutes for an opening statement, after which we will proceed to a questions and answers session.

Dr. Barry O'Reilly:

I thank the Chairman for his invitation to update the members of the committee on the Commission proposal for a regulation on new genomic techniques, NGTs. These new genomic techniques are commonly known as NGTs or gene editing techniques and are new technologies that have developed over the last two decades.

Targeted mutagenesis and cisgenesis are considered NGTs and are the subject matter of the Commission's legislative proposal. Targeted mutagenesis results in modifications to the DNA sequence at targeted locations in the genome of an organism. Cisgenesis allows the insertion of genetic material in the genome from a sexually compatible, or crossable, organism.

NGTs differ from traditional genetically modified organisms, GMOs, obtained through transgenesis, as transgenic techniques involve the insertion of genetic material from non-crossable organisms. The potential for NGTs to deliver crops with improved traits in a faster way than conventional breeding can deliver benefits for farmers, consumers and the environment.

Plant applications of NGTs have developed rapidly and will continue to do so on a global scale. There is ongoing public and private research using NGTs on a variety of crops and traits, including crops with higher yields, improved tolerance or resistance to pests and diseases, improved tolerance to environmental and climate change effects, improved nutrient use efficiency, and improved quality and nutritional characteristics.

The European Court of Justice, in its judgment of 25 July 2018, clarified that plant varieties bred using NGTs fall under the scope of Union GMO legislation. This judgment led to the European Council requesting the Commission to submit a study regarding the status of NGTs under Union law, and a proposal, if appropriate, in view of the outcome of the study.

The Commission delivered the requested study in April 2021. The study concluded that current Union GMO legislation is no longer fit for purpose and needs adaptation to scientific and technological progress for some NGTs and products derived from NGTs. The study concluded that the current regulatory environment for NGTs is not conducive to developing innovative and beneficial products that could contribute to sustainability, food security and resilience of the agrifood chain.

On 5 July 2023, the Commission adopted its proposal for a regulation on plants obtained by certain NGTs and derived food and feed products. The proposal was adopted following an extensive and comprehensive process undertaken by the Commission, including stakeholder consultation that included a public consultation, a targeted stakeholder survey, interviews and focus groups on sustainability and traceability. At the heart of the proposal is the objective to maintain a high level of protection of human and animal health and the environment and to enable the development and placing on the market of NGT plants and plant products contributing to EU innovation and sustainability objectives. The main provision of the proposal is that it makes the deliberate release and placing on the market of NGT plants subject to one of two procedures, the first being notification to establish equivalence with conventional products for category 1 NGT plants and the second being authorisation under Union GMO legislation but with some adaptations for category 2 NGT plants.

Ireland’s position on the proposal has been one of support. Our position has been informed by a number of factors, including: the scientific opinion from the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA, that NGT plants are as safe as conventionally bred plants; our ongoing engagement with the interagency GMO group; the outcome of our public national consultation, which showed strong support for the proposal; the synergies of the proposal with broader policies such as the European Green Deal and the farm to fork strategy; and the need to embrace new technology and innovation to meet the various challenges facing the agricultural sector, as highlighted in the Food Vision 2030 strategy.

The Spanish Presidency organised an intensive schedule of meetings to progress the proposal. A compromise text was voted on at the agriculture and fisheries, AGRIFISH, Council meeting in December. Ireland supported the compromise text. However, sufficient support for a general approach was not achieved. The main areas where agreement could not be reached related to the potential impact of patenting of varieties bred by NGTs, and the labelling of food and feed products produced from category 1 NGTs. The Belgian Presidency is continuing efforts to progress the proposal. It has circulated an updated compromise text in recent days.

The European Parliament adopted its first reading of the Commission’s proposal on 7 February of this year, with a further update on 24 April. The main amendments adopted by the Parliament on the Commission proposal include: the exclusion from patentability of plants produced by NGTs; and mandatory labelling of both category 1 and category 2 NGT products at each stage of their placing on the market.

The next step in the legislative process is the trilogue, which intends to bring together the three texts into a single agreeable compromise text which will be passed into law. The three texts are: the Council’s amended text; the Parliament’s amended text; and the Commission’s original submission. However, the trilogue process will not begin until a new Parliament and Commission are in place, and until the Council has agreed on its own compromise text.

To conclude, I again thank the Chairman for the opportunity to update the committee on the status of the Commission’s proposal on NGTs. My colleagues and I are happy to answer questions that members of the committee may have.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. O'Reilly. I ask him to confirm that he is head of the crops policy, evaluation and certification division in the Department.

Dr. Barry O'Reilly:

Yes.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I read Dr. O'Reilly's statement. It is very interesting. I have only two queries. The Irish position is referred to on page 3. Ireland’s position on the proposal has been informed by a number of factors, including the input of the European Food Safety Authority. I might add that we do not have sight of that organisation's opinion. It would be helpful to have it. The European Food Safety Authority is a significant body. Dr. O'Reilly also referred to the interagency GMO group and the national consultation, which, he says, has strong support. Let us deal with the consultation first. It was initiated on 25 September 2023. There is no publication that I know of, and I have checked. I know of no document about the consultation. We know that a substantial number, namely 60, submissions were received as part of the public consultation. As a member of the committee, I have not had sight of these. I looked at the Government press office statements of the Departments today to see if they are available. There was a great announcement about this public consultation and the importance of it. The Department advertised it in a number of publications and 60 submissions were received. I understand that a significant number of those were in favour but that there were people who had concerns. If we are going to do proper scrutiny of this process, we should know the details of the submissions. I do not know if Dr. O’Reilly can share them with us now. We are not under any pressure to sign off on this today. Dr. O’Reilly might confirm whether we are under any tight timelines in the context of the process. I am a bit concerned.

There are two things I am asking. One is for the European Food Safety Authority report to be shared with us. If we are going to engage in an exhaustive analysis of this, we need to see the document. I would also like a summary of the public consultation that the Department undertook, which was announced with great gusto in the context of what was being done, etc. That is fine, but there is no report that I know of. Those are my two asks, and I think they are reasonable.

Are we under time pressure when it comes to this process? Mr. O'Reilly referred to a new Parliament being in place before we can move forward. He touched on the trilogue process. That will be a matter for the new Parliament and the new Commission, so maybe we do have enough time. If we have enough time, I make the case to the Chair that we do not proceed to make a decision on this process tonight - that is a matter for the committee and its members – until we have those two items, namely the report of the European Food Safety Authority, because it is important, and some understanding of the 60 submissions relating to the public consultation, which were deemed important by the Department. If we are going to have a consultation process, we must be informed by it. I assume the Department has an expert summary or analysis of those submissions.

Dr. Barry O'Reilly:

On the European Food Safety Authority report, it did carry out a study and published a report which identified no additional hazards associated with NGT plants compared with conventional plants. We can make that report available to the committee.

There was a public consultation process. We did not produce a summary of that, but we can and we will. I might give the committee a quick summary now -----

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Dr. Barry O'Reilly:

----- on the submissions. We received 62 responses to the public consultation. Overall, 90% of respondents were in favour of adaptation of the current regulation to legislate for NGTs. Around 35% of the respondents were tillage farmers.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, how many?

Dr. Barry O'Reilly:

It was 35%. I do not have the exact number.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is just a guide.

Dr. Barry O'Reilly:

In total, there were 22 tillage farmers. Overall, 48 of the 62 respondents, or 80%, were stakeholders in the tillage industry. That would include farmers, researchers, farmer organisations and various ancillary industries, such as the seed trade, grain merchants and umbrella organisations and representative groups. There were 13 respondents that we might categorise as citizens or stakeholders who are involved in the organic sector, five of whom were in favour of adaptation to regulate for NGT and seven who were against and who are in favour of maintaining the status quo. In other words, they are in favour of maintaining the regulation of NGTs in the context of the current GMO legislative framework. Of those 13, one did not indicate opposition. That is a very broad breakdown of the respondents to the stakeholder consultation and their various views.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is interesting. It would have been more beneficial had we had that data. I would be very interested to have information on the people who made submissions and on whether there were conflicts of interest. Clearly, people have interests. We all have interests in certain things, and one must see that in the context of a consultation process. I would respectfully ask that it be communicated to the Department that there was a consultation process and that it is rather strange that it just died a death and there was no follow-up. These are two important issues. We should have had more detail on both as part of our consideration of this matter. I thank Dr. O’Reilly for his engagement.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses and warmly welcome them. In contrast to the remarks of my good friend and colleague on slowing this down in any way, I would suggest the opposite. It was at my invitation that we had the group in here over a year ago to discuss this matter. What came from that and the evidence given by those people, including Teagasc, was the need for what we are discussing. Even without meeting anyone in the committee now or knowing the slightest thing about NGT or GMO, we see the evidence of climate change and crops struggling in drought. When we have this process, which is not GMO, it is just modifying the actual crop. Dr. O’Reilly will be able to explain it better than I can but it expedites what can happen naturally but happens naturally too slowly for the crops to catch up and survive in changing conditions. That is one example. It will also create varieties of crops that will reduce the need for pesticides. The people we had before us on the previous occasion requested that we ask the Department to go to Europe in order to expedite the changes and get this whole NGT area out of the GMO category. That was the ruling of the court, namely that, unfortunately, it was still in it.

I am seeking a couple of clarifications. Along with the opening statement, we got a briefing note which did contain a great deal of information. Much of the information Senator Boyhan is looking for is contained in that briefing note. In layman’s terms, will Dr. O’Reilly explain the difference between categories 1 and 2. My reading of category 1 is that it is what will and can happen naturally and that category 2 is when this is expedited. Maybe I am wrong.

Will Dr. O’Reilly also explain if it is the case that category 1 is outside GMO legislation now or is that what is proposed going forward? If it is currently outside it, will he give examples of what systems are in place that can be used now before the Parliament reconvenes and we get this over the line?

Dr. Barry O'Reilly:

For clarification, all plants produced from new genomic techniques, NGTs, which are mutagenesis and cisgenesis, use these technologies that have been developed over the past two decades. The European Court of Justice gave a ruling that any plants produced from these technologies fall under the scope of current GMO legislation. The Commission carried out a study in regards to the status of NGTs under Union law. It concluded that current GMO legislation is not fit for purpose when it comes to NGTs and that it needs to be adapted to take account of scientific and technological progress over the past two decades.

That formed the basis for the Commission bringing forward this proposal, which was adopted last in July last year. The main provisions of the proposal essentially put forward two procedures. One relates to a notification procedure for verification of plants produced by new genomic techniques to verify whether they can be produced conventionally. NGTs can result in plants that can happen by conventional breeding or in nature. There is a large degree of complexity in terms of plants that can be produced by NGTs. Some of them are very simple; others are far more complex.

The first provision is a verification procedure whereby applicants who breed plants by NGTs submit a verification request and a decision is made. It depends on what the intended use is; if it is for field trials it is made at a national level, while if it is for placing on the market it is made at a centralised level to the European Food Safety Authority. A decision is made on whether the plants fall into category 1, which would be deemed equivalent to conventional plants. That decision is made on the basis of meeting certain criteria that are laid out in the annex of the proposal. Those criteria essentially relate to the number and type of modifications that are carried out to the genome of the plant. If there are fewer than 20 modifications of a certain type, it is deemed a conventional plant and it falls outside the scope of the GMO legislation.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It falls into category 1.

Dr. Barry O'Reilly:

It falls into category 1 and it is deemed a conventional plant subject to legislation that is relevant to conventional plants.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Under the proposal, will those falling into category 2 still be subject to the GMO legislation?

Dr. Barry O'Reilly:

Yes. As category 2 plants are more complex, they will still fall under the GMO legislation but there would be adaptations to the current GMO legislation. Given the wide variety of different types of plants that can be produced under category 2, there are adaptations made to the NGT category two, the current GMO legislation, to make it more proportionate in terms of the data requirements for carrying out the risk assessment, the requirements relating to post-release monitoring and those for authorisation renewal.

There are adaptations there to take account of the different levels of risk associated with category 2 NGTs. As regards category 2 NGTs, if they do not meet the criteria for category 1, they still fall under the GMO legislation and are subject to authorisation, labelling and traceability. If they meet the criteria for category 1, they are classified as conventional plants and fall outside the scope of the GMO legislation. They are still banned in organic production, however. NGT plants are not allowed under the organics regulation.

In terms of transparency in the context of category 1 NGTs, there is a requirement for the labelling of seed propagating material. That is essentially to give organic farmers a choice and in order to ensure there is transparency in terms of the seed they buy. There are transparency provisions and there will be a public register available which will contain information on all category 1 NGTs.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In conclusion, category 1 plants will be outside the GMO legislation.

Dr. Barry O'Reilly:

Yes.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Category 2 plants will still be inside the GMO legislation but the GMO legislation is also going to change as part of this process.

Dr. Barry O'Reilly:

The current GMO legislation will not change. This proposal adapts the requirements of the GMO legislation specifically for NGT category 2 plants. The current GMO legislation will not change. For example, if an application is made for a traditional transgenic GMO, the GMO provisions will still apply. This proposal will just adapt the provisions specifically for category 2 NGTs.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As proposals stand at the moment, we are where we are with the European Parliament resolving a lot of it. From an Irish perspective, are the witnesses happy? Is Teagasc happy? Would it welcome what is being proposed at the minute?

Dr. Ewen Mullins:

As the Deputy mentioned, we were here about a year and a half ago. What is being proposed at the moment in terms of category 1, will definitely lead to the development of novel varieties that have the potential to reduce pesticide input and to have greater nutrient use efficiency. In light of the challenges the Deputy outlined, we need all the tools available not just to Teagasc, but also to the community, the sector, the public and academics. For anybody who is developing varieties, be they grass, clover or arable varieties, these tools will be very important. Among the conditions for category 1 is that it covers plants with up to 20 modifications but, as Dr. O'Reilly stated, there are five different types.

To give a clear example, there could be a variety where there could be four modifications. That could include four genes for resistance to a particular disease. That would equip that variety with a new ability in the field. There is also the opportunity to enhance the quality of the material. That would be another maybe five or six modifications. The variety would still be under the target of 20. As regards category 1, it is basically accelerating the breeding process. It could be done through conventional means, but that would take decades. That is really what it comes down to.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Nature is very resilient. All the crops we are talking about that are now suffering because of drought that we have never seen before will in time modify themselves. Basically this is about expediting that process. Foreign bodies or outside influences are not introduced. It is expediting what nature will do itself but will take a long time to do.

Dr. Ewen Mullins:

That is exactly it. The breeding process is accelerated. The Commission has been very clear that category 1 is equivalent to the transfer of genetic material from a compatible species, such as wild potato to conventional potato or wild barley to conventional barley, for example. It is not about material being transferred from daffodil into wheat, something that will never happen naturally.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming in and commend them for their work on this. It is very important and it would be great to see it brought to a conclusion. It is unfortunate that we are in an election cycle which will probably delay it somewhat. My first question is probably for Dr. O'Reilly. With regard to category 1 and category 2, am I correct in saying that the category 1 could happen naturally but, as Dr. Mullins said, would take a lot longer?

Dr. Barry O'Reilly:

Category 1 plants are plants that could occur naturally or through conventional breeding.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Dr. O'Reilly will then probably ask me why I am worrying about this and can we not just sort this. Why then are category 1 NGTs not allowed in organics if they are essentially naturally occurring, albeit with a faster track? What is the rationale for excluding NGTs, given that organic producers would say they are at a natural disadvantage anyway in the wider scheme? They are doing their best for the environment and the human body but are we not putting organic producers at a huge disadvantage if NGT category 1, which is essentially a naturally produced crop, is not allowed to be included in organics? Should it be?

Dr. Barry O'Reilly:

Right throughout the consultation process, the view from the organic sector was very much that it did not want NGT category 1 plants. Probably one of the main reasons for that is NGT category 1 plants are not in keeping with a public perception of what people expect from organic food. That is probably one of the main reasons but it is something the organic sector itself does not want. There are two sides to that argument as well.

Johnny Mythen (Wexford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming in. I agree with all of the discussion that is going on so far but we have to be careful as well because these products will wind up in the human food chain. In particular I am concerned about safety checks, traceability and labelling. On the NGT products, if a country develops them, who will own the product itself since this is new? The Irish position on this is fairly clear but we have to get it right because we are developing something new with NGTs. How long will the product itself be tested for?

We all know about the ecosystem as well. There is a balance between the ecosystem that is there because there are the bees and the birds. If they eat this product what could happen to them?

The witnesses spoke about nutrients. Will we be able to prove that these new products are good for the consumer? How will we know it is a perfectly bona fide product?

Dr. Barry O'Reilly:

In terms of who owns the products, there are a couple of different mechanisms that provide protection for developers of NGTs. First, there are the patents. If someone makes an invention of an NGT product because that plant is produced by technical means, he or she can patent that particular plant or the trait that is in that plant.

With regard to varieties, there is intellectual property on varieties through the plant breeders' rights system. That allows plant breeders to register a variety and to control the marketing and propagation of that variety.

In terms of the safety aspect, category one NGT plants are considered equivalent to conventional plants. There are no additional risks in terms of safety associated with that if they are considered to be conventional and meet the criteria. If the plants do not, obviously they will fall under the genetically modified organisms, GMO, legislation. Under the GMO legislation a very robust risk assessment is carried out whereby-----

Johnny Mythen (Wexford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The category 1 NGT plants will not be under the GMO legislation, will they?

Dr. Barry O'Reilly:

Category 2 NGT plants would be under the GMO legislation but category 1 NGT plants will not be under the GMO legislation.

Johnny Mythen (Wexford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay.

Dr. Barry O'Reilly:

As category 1 NGT plants are considered to be conventional plants and are conventional products as a result of that, they are deemed to not have any greater risk than conventional plants or products. Do any of my colleagues with to add to that?

Mr. Cara Mac Aodh?in:

To double up on what Dr. Mullins said earlier, all of the material used to produce NGTs are from the breeder's gene pool so it is material that can be used in conventional breeding, currently. If one is breeding barley he or she uses genetic material from other barley varieties or crop-wide relatives that are related to barley and used in conventional breeding already. It is just a method of being more precise and breeding new varieties. It is from the same pool of genetic material so safety concerns really are the same as with conventional varieties and there are no safety concerns with them.

Johnny Mythen (Wexford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about traceability?

Mr. Cara Mac Aodh?in:

With regard to traceability, NGTs are deemed equivalent to conventional varieties and therefore the proposal as it stands is that labelling would only go to seed stage and that is to allow for organic farmers to have the choice to not use NGT varieties.

Johnny Mythen (Wexford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the organic farmers will they have to prove their products are genome-free? How will they do that?

Dr. Barry O'Reilly:

NGTs by their nature do not contain any foreign genes. In terms of category 1 NGT plants, they are the category we are really talking about here. They are considered to be conventional plants. At the moment we have conventional crops being grown alongside organic crops so that is happening already. Essentially, growing NGT plants will not really change that. To go back to the Deputy's previous point about safety of NGTs, it also must be borne in mind that there is a lot of general legislation - food and food safety legislation - that has to be complied with before a feed product or a food product can be placed on the market. Any products, whether they be products produced from NGT plants or from conventional plants, have to meet very strict food and feed safety requirements before they are placed on the market.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be concise and it is really more of a comment rather than a question. At the outset I understand the potential benefits of the NGTs and I think we all do. There are great possibilities but today we have a process in this committee and that is to analyse, scrutinise, seek some validation where possible and practical and to engage with the witnesses on this in a respectful manner and way.

Dr. O'Reilly presented a paper to this committee which I have read and I have the briefing document. I could only elicit a certain amount of information from all of that. It is all printed off and here in front of me. I have three points and I want to be very clear and have no misunderstanding. I am always conscious at this committee that we are not just listening to ourselves. People outside of this room are listening so this is for the record of our proceedings and it is important. I will take this opportunity, yet again, to appeal to people outside of this room so they are clear and there is no ambiguity about my position on this topic. It is not my intention to slow down this process at all. We can meet here next week and discuss all of this. I asked the question about the timelines and the witnesses did not come back to me but I note what they said about the process, the Parliament and the Commission and we are in an electoral cycle. It appears we do have some time but not to delay it. I am happy to come back in here next week if the committee decides to look at this topic again but that is a matter for the committee to decide.

The other thing is the witnesses references in the written statement today that the scientific opinion of the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA.

We do not have that scientific opinion before us. To be true to myself and true to my work in this committee, I want to see the evidence. I want to see these reports Dr. O'Reilly referred to in his report. I did not refer to them. Dr. O'Reilly is happy to confirm that he did not provide us with the European Food Safety Authority report that was referenced in his report. That is not a criticism of him but he will understand my line of questioning. I want to see that report because I am not happy to sign off on something which he has referenced but which was not circulated with any papers to this committee. That is one point I want to make.

The final point I want to make is on the public consultation. I went on the Department's website today and there was no detail of the submission. I checked again later this evening but Dr. O'Reilly confirmed, following my questioning, that there was no summary of the public consultation. Given that it was confirmed that 60 submissions were made to this public consultation, it is important for members who wish to consider the concerns have that opportunity. If we are to have an overall view, we need to see all sides.

I want to be clear that these are my simple and reasonable requests in a process of due diligence and consideration of these matters before us today. However, I want to be clearer in that I am not in the business of delaying this matter. However, I am making the request that I see both of those pieces of information before I make a fully informed decision. Both of those points were raised by Dr. O'Reilly in his submission, and not by me. Again, I thank him and his officials for their co-operation and engagement with us this evening.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Dr. O'Reilly.

Dr. Barry O'Reilly:

As I said, I am happy to provide that report by the European Food Safety Authority and to provide a summary of the consultation.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think it would be helpful. I thank Dr. O'Reilly.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Senator Daly.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like further clarification. I am going back to category 1 and category 2. Category 1 is where there can be up to 20 interventions. If we accept that, could we reach a time where a crop would evolve from category 1 to category 2 and if the laws change, it would then become GMO? Am I reading that incorrectly?

When this final draft comes to us or whoever and it is passed at a European level, what element of subsidiarity will there be? Do we have to go with what comes? Do we have to accept it all or will there be elements where we can differ from what has been recommended and decide not to go with the changes? It could be along the lines of the issues in the hemp industry where we are not up to speed with European law or European guidelines when it comes to hemp.

Dr. Barry O'Reilly:

On the first point regarding the criteria that establishes whether plants are equivalent to conventional plants, there is provision in the legislative proposal for the Commission to adopt a delegated Act to amend that particular criteria in light of scientific and technological progress. That provision is in the proposal at the moment.

In relation to the level of subsidiarity, in the Presidency's compromised text, there is the provision for member states to opt out of the cultivation of NGT 2 plants. That is similar to the provision that exists in current GMO legislation. A directive was introduced in 2015 that allows member states to prohibit or restrict the cultivation of GMO plants. There is scope for us to apply that if we wish in the case of NGT 2 plants.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just NGT 2 plants.

Dr. Barry O'Reilly:

Yes.

Mr. Cara Mac Aodh?in:

In the initial Commission proposal from 5 July, there was no opt out provision. I refer to the Council working party. The latest text provides for an opt-out. That was required in order to proceed to the next stage and to get agreement of-----

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In that scenario, when this is on the table and is agreed to, it is a given that farmers will be allowed to use NGT 1 plants but it will be down to Ireland to decide if we can use NGT 2.

Mr. Eoin Deegan:

Just to clarify, that will be on a case-by-case basis. It will not be a blanket opt out for NGT 2s. That decision will be made on the basis of each application.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A committee member wants more information and more documentation as a backup before we make a decision on this COM. If the committee is in agreement, I propose that we wait and get that information from the Department and the witnesses and that we make a decision then. We will get a briefing from the officials and it will be dealt with in the next private meeting of the committee. I would like to thank the witnesses for coming in today and for giving very comprehensive answers to the committee's questions.

The next public meeting of the committee will take place at 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 29 May 2024. The committee will engage in further scrutiny of COM(2023)3769, a proposal on improving the rules on the welfare cats and dogs and their traceability and a compliance with the Nitrates Directive and the implications for Ireland. As there are no further matters for discussion, the meeting is adjourned.