asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the advice he can give to farmers in view of the EC and the Government's decision to ban the use of hormones to counteract the loss of profits of £80 per head in cattle in this country taking into account the difficult situation with beef numbers.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Ban on Hormones.
1.
My advice to farmers is to adhere to national and EC law. As profits can only derive from lawful activity I cannot accept the assertion that compliance with European and domestic law involves "a loss of profits". The hormone ban was introduced by the European Communities on 31 December 1985 and introduced into Irish law by regulation on 3 July 1986. The high reputation of Irish beef on the domestic and European market is based on the assumption that we respect European and domestic law.
The consumers in our main export markets have a perception of Irish beef and food products generally as additive free and produced in a natural and clean environment. It is better to command premium prices from consumers who want our products than to produce what consumers will not accept.
I must also remind the Deputy that cattle prices in this country have been reaching record levels recently and for only the second time since we joined the European Communities in 1973 the average price exceeded the Community average price. In fact, the average mart price is over 12 per cent higher now than it was at this time last year.
Finally, I indicated in a reply to a similar question on 16 December 1987 that individual cattle producers can mitigate any adverse effects of the ban on the use of hormone growth promoters in cattle by adopting improved management practices, including breed selection. Any farmers who are in doubt regarding the measures appropriate in their individual circumstances should consult their local ACOT advisers.
I accept essentially what the Minister has said. Nevertheless, would he not agree that the increase in the price of cattle which he has indicated to the House relates not to returns but to scarcity? Would he not accept that beef farmers generally and those specialising in beef in particular are facing a very difficult future in relation to the cost of buying in, the increase in VAT and the increase in the disease levies? Would he not accept that all these things have led to the erosion of the margin required to be able to keep cattle all the year around and supply the many factories which are now in the course of construction?
The question from the Deputy's party colleague made no reference to any of the factors he is now touching on. It implied that compensation should be provided from the taxpayer for adhering to European and domestic law, calling loss of profits into question. I do not accept that and I hope all parties in the House, including the Progressive Democrats who have raised this matter on a number of occasions in that form, will communicate that it is worse than futile at this point to complain about what is the law both here and in the EC. Secondly, as regards the trends and the reasons for the increase in prices, there are a variety of factors. One is that all cattle and all meat are commanding premium prices on sophisticated consumer markets in Europe and will continue to do so as long as we maintain that standard and reputation. I hope we will not hear from any Deputy — or adviser — further suggestions that we should break the law, European or domestic, or any further complaints about that law.
As regards the Minister's comments about problems of scarcity, those are probably related more to the Minister's failure to get any scheme going to increase the beef cow herd. However, that is another issue. On the question of hormones, what is the attitude of the US and how will it impact on future decisions of the EC? I am raising the issue in relation to the US where hormones have been cleared by the food and drugs administration and where there is a major export of about £100 million a year into the Community of offal and I gather the US has indicated firmly that it is not prepared to give in, as it were, to the decision of the EC and have that trade totally wiped out. What is the up-to-date situation there?
I know the US has taken certain positions and the Commission of the EC on behalf of the EC is in constant discussions with the US in respect of that as a consequence of the decision taken, as the Deputy will know, before I came into Government. I am simply implementing what was decided by the Council and the Government in which the Deputy's party participated.
We are, as far as I know, uniquely in the EC the country — perhaps there is another one now — not required to certify each individual consignment as being hormone free. That means that on the German, Dutch or any other market in Europe our produce has immediate access without the delay, cost or bureaucratic entanglement of certifying each consignment. I hope each Member of the House will see the importance of that and that we will go for the top of the market where we are getting the top price. The Deputy knows the other question is not relevant and does not arise from this question.
Would the Minister not accept that the question as framed did not imply a request for compensation? Would he not accept that the measure, which I support, was brought before the House? An undertaking was given to the beef industry that great benefits would accrue from the banning of hormones. Today will he accept that those benefits have not accrued?
I have to note that the Progressive Democrats Party in the person of Deputy Geraldine Kennedy, who cannot be said to be involved in what might be called a farm producing area, raised this question on 16 December 1987 and now, significantly, Deputy Wyse, who does not come from a rural constituency, is raising the same question.
That is not true.
It is.
He represents a rural area.
I suggest that the advice which is coming to the Progressive Democrats Party from a certain consultant is not in the national interest or in the interest of the party either. Perhaps they will tell that consultant who has gone on public record from time to time——
(Interruptions.)
I want to deal with Question No. 2. I ask for the co-operation of Members in making some progress at Question Time. I am not prepared to dwell unduly long on any one question.
Can the Minister confirm whether all the EC countries are adhering to the ban? If not, has he any information as to which, if any of them, are not?
As of now all countries are obliged to adhere to it but obviously some of them did not put in place as early as we did — under the previous Administration I acknowledge — the regulations regarding it. Now they are all obliged to come in line with what we have done previously. If they do not abide by that they are subject to very heavy penalty. Equally, I hope the House will agree with me — I see the former Minister is here — that the decisions taken which I am now endorsing can be used to the advantage of this nation in this area.