Vol. 444 No. 3
2 Mrs. Doyle asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the value of live cattle exports to the Irish economy in each of the years 1991 to 1993; his views on the present level of exports; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
43 Mr. E. Byrne asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the estimated number of live cattle exported from Ireland so far this year; if his attention has been drawn to recent statements made by the chief executive of the Irish Meat Processors Association which suggested that the level of exports during 1993 caused approximately 1,200 job losses in the meat trade; the steps, if any, he is taking to ensure that live exports do not hit the meat trade; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
49 Mr. Connor asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he will make a policy statement on the question of live cattle exports from this country.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2, 43 and 49 together.
According to CSO statistics the value of live cattle exports in 1991 and 1992 amounted to £67 million and £70 million respectively. Comparable statistics for 1993 are not yet available. These figures do not include the value of export refunds paid on these animals which, for example, amounted to £13 million in 1992. My Department estimates that 374,442 live cattle were exported in 1993 and that 155,476 live cattle were exported up to the end of May this year.
Some level of live exports provides for greater competition in the marketplace and, of course, trade conducted in accordance with EU law may not be restricted. Nevertheless, I am aware of the implications for employment of high levels of live cattle exports. Because of the greater benefits to the economy from exports of beef it is Government policy to provide a generous range of State grants for investment in plant and machinery, for research and for market promotion by the beef processing sector. It is also Government policy to ensure that EU support mechanisms provide effective encouragement for the export of beef in processed form.
I was very concerned about the recent statements of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Joe Walsh, on live exports. Does the Minister of State agree that the essential criterion in this entire debate between live and dead meat exports is that balance must be brought into the equation? The Minister, Deputy Joe Walsh, has come down heavily on the side of meat processors, virtually against live exports. Does the Minister remember what happened in the 1970s when there were no live cattle exports and how farmers throughout the country were left with one arm longer than the other? Does he remember what happened in the 1980s when there was a single tender for intervention? That was another cartel, effectively aided and abetted by his Department, because only those who sat around the table in the Burlington had any say. With competition farmers are now getting a reasonable return for their animals, particularly for the poorer quality stores for export. I would urge the need for balance. I ask the Minister to bring balance to his argument. There will be plenty of cattle for the meat factories, but we must keep the live exports to ensure a fair price to farmers.
I agree with Deputy Doyle that balance is the key to the question of live cattle exports versus beef processing. It would not be fair to say that my colleague, Deputy Joe Walsh, has come down against live exports. My colleague and I have taken the position that, as the Deputy said, it is a matter of balance. Obviously, there needs to be competition in the marketplace to protect the producer. A cartel among the meat factories is of no benefit to the producer. I like to take what I believe is the long term view. The market for live cattle exports to Third World countries is volatile. We have had a very high level of export to these countries. We have had an excessively high level of live exports last year and so far this year. If those markets were to suddenly disappear for any particular reason or if, because of competition or whatever, we could no longer command such a high level of exports to those markets, that would have the effect of producing a glut on the home market which would not be welcome. In the long term interests of the producer, the processor, and, indeed in the interests of employment, we should aim to ensure within EU regulations that the processors are guaranteed the supply of animals that is required so that they can expand market share in terms of the EU markets. Those are our main markets, I believe stability will come from there, but there must be a level of live exports also to maintain balance in the trade.
Will the Minister agree it is in the interests of the European Union to ensure that these live exports to third countries continue as the EU is marginally in surplus in terms of cattle production? Finally, is it Government policy, through the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, to pressure the EU to reduce export refunds on live exports to third countries and what is the Minister of State's opinion on that?
Looking at the matter on an EU-wide basis, it is obviously in the Union's interest that live exports continue. In the context of this country, where we produce eight times the amount of beef we need, we have a different problem but certainly——
It is in our farmers' interests that it continues.
To maintain a balance would be in everybody's interest. Would the Deputy repeat her second question?
Is it true that the Minister is endeavouring to have the export refunds on exports to third countries further reduced through the EU?
As the Deputy is aware, the refunds have been reduced twice and the matter will not arise again until October because the last reduction will not have an effect on the market until then due to a pre-pricing structure operated by live exporters.
Is it Government policy to have further reductions?
The position has to be reviewed constantly and the situation that pertains next October will obviously dictate the Government's approach at that time.
