Vol. 449 No. 3
3 Mr. O'Malley asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he has agreed to new EU regulations on animal transport; if he will give details of any such regulations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3514/95]
4 Mr. Cowen asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the policy he intends pursuing regarding live exports. [3496/95]
5 Mr. H. Byrne asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the steps, if any, he intends to take to support the trade of live export of cattle, in particular to prevent disruption of the transportation of cattle to foreign markets; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3436/95]
52 Mr. E. Byrne asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the proposals, if any, he has for ensuring that humane live export facilities are put in place; the proposed timeframe for implementation of those proposals; and if he will make a statement on the matter.[3466/95]
87 Mr. Callely asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the recent developments with regard to live cattle exports; the measures, if any, he intends to introduce to this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter.[3540/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 52 and 87 together.
I am most concerned by any prospect of disruption to our live exports to EU member states particularly in view of the national importance of this trade and of Ireland's peripherality and island status. This is a legitimate trade in the context of the Single Market and I believe that it should continue under the most stringent welfare conditions. It is my intention to continue to operate and to build on the welfare related controls currently applied by my Department. Those controls include the approval of ships and lorries used for the carriage of livestock, having regard to ventilation, drainage, feeding and watering criteria, stocking densities etc.; pre-export inspection and certification of all animals by a State veterinarian; only fit and healthy animals are permitted to travel and state veterinarians accompany selected consignments to destination. These controls make for an export regime that is consistent with the wellbeing of animals being exported.
The question of further strengthening and enforcing the welfare rules that govern the transportation of animals throughout the European Union has been under consideration for some time. It was debated under the German and, previously, the Greek Presidency. A broad consensus was reached on the main elements such as registration and training of persons involved in transportation, stocking densities, feeding and watering intervals, rest periods and control of journeys. The arrangements on the table provide for strict enforcement of these measures by the member states and the Commission and for notification of infringements to the member state of origin which would then take the necessary action, including, where appropriate, withdrawal of authorisation.
However, a number of issues remain to be resolved including that dealing with maximum journey times allowable. The dossier is again on the agenda for the Council of Agriculture Ministers commencing on Monday next, 20 February.Following discussions which I had last Friday with Commissioner Fischler, and subsequently with the president of the Council last Monday, I am hopeful that an agreed solution will emerge from that meeting.
I am strongly supporting the adoption of additional welfare protection measures which also take account of our particular circumstances and needs. The new measures will ensure that the welfare of animals will be effectively protected from the time they leave farms in Ireland until they arrive at their ultimate destination in any part of the European Union.
While some ferry companies have ceased carrying animals from Ireland because of pressure from animal welfare interests, there has not been any undue disruption of the market. I am hopeful that when the new EU measures are in place, the ferry companies will have sufficient guarantees to continue or, where appropriate, resume the transport of live animals.
At my request, senior departmental officials have been in regular contact with representatives of those companies and these contacts will be maintained.
The Minister's comprehensive reply, for which I thank him, appears to apply only to internal EU transport. There may be a problem also in respect of exports outside the Community and perhaps he will tell the House how he proposes to deal with these. Will these rules have to be made by way of a Council directive rather than by a Commission regulation? Given that 15 member states are involved and that this matter is very sensitive in some states, will the Minister agree that it may take some time to agree these rules? What does he propose to do in the meantime to deal with the disruption in trade which could cause very substantial losses for farmers?
The non-EU trade, which is more important to us, is different. Of the 405,000 live animals exported last year, 270,000 were the adult stock for the north African market. These animals are transported in specially adapted boats which have pens and separate feeding and water facilities. Cattle exported to Europe are transported in lorries on ro-ro ferries. We are talking about adapting the vehicles and installing glucose drips to prevent the animals dehydrating. There has not been a substantial protest or controversy about the non-EU trade because of this substantive difference in the methods of transport.
A Council regulation is required and that is why intensive discussions have taken place. I understand that the primary focus of the Council meeting on Monday will be on this issue and that the meeting will begin with bilateral discussions.The Scientific Veterinary Committee has been working on this issue since the last Council meeting and much progress has been made. The Benelux countries tabled a compromise proposal on maximum journey times, which we are prepared to support in part. I am very anxious to get new, clear and workable rules so that the shipping companies can install facilities for the transportation of livestock which are animal friendly and which cater for our legitimate market trade.
Will the Minister——
Order. I wish to call Deputy Brian Cowen and Deputy Hugh Byrne whose Priority Questions Nos. 4 and 5 refer.
I share the sentiments expressed by the Minister about the need to have animal friendly transportation facilities. My question relates to the balance between the live and the processed trades. As the Minister is aware, in recent years there has been a significant increase in live trade and a significant decrease, 300,000, in the number of cattle sent to beef processing factories. The Minister must strike a balance which is in the long term interests of producers and which at the same time ensures adequate raw material for the processing trade which is essential to the food industry, about which we heard so much in recent days.
I did not wish to avoid this issue by grouping the questions together — I was not sure if the Deputy's question dealt with the transport regulations. Most of the past 36 hours has been spent debating this issue. On Tuesday morning the Commission decided to suspend pre-fixation payments for live exports and as we speak a meeting is taking place of the beef management committee which will probably cut export refunds on live animals.
The first black mark.
My officials have been given very clear instructions about my policy in this area. I will be happy to communicate the outcome of the meeting to the Deputy later this evening.
We favour maximising the value added from our cattle output. However, only 10 per cent of cattle production is consumed at home. We must, therefore, maximise output both on the hook and hoof — it is not possible to maximise value added in one area only. It must also be remembered that the intervention system is effectively over. The 340 kilogram carcass weight restriction means that there will be no more intervention.No intervention beef was taken from Ireland during 1994. This gives rise to questions about the safety value for cattle prices especially during the autumn when there is a glut in the market. I am trying to ensure a higher throughput in factories. Given that the deseasonalisation slaughter premium will be in place until April, there is an adequate support mechanism in favour of beef processors at present. I do not support a further cut in export refunds for live animals at this time. However, a case can be made after April for the retention of the premium, which is equivalent to £58 per head or 7p per pound, to ensure equilibrium in the market.
I will keep this matter under constant review. I am a prisoner to neither side — during the past 48 hours I met the IFA livestock committee and live exporters while during the past week I met IBEC and the IMPA. I am trying to strike a balance but there is a huge gulf between fact and figures. I am, therefore, seeking independently verified data to ascertain the true position.
Is the Minister aware that Teagasc has found that 75,000 dry stock farmers received an income of £3,300? It is important, therefore, that the balance to which he referred is strictly adhered to. We must retain the live trade while also supporting the dead meat trade. Will the Minister give an unequivocal commitment to maintain the live trade which is so important to the economy? What steps does he propose to take to ensure that ferry companies will transport live cattle?
I propose to implement new animal friendly rules so that shipping companies can assure protesters that the facilities provided are safe and reasonable from the point of view of animals. On that basis, I will ask the three shipping companies to resume the transportation of live animals. It is only reasonable that the new regulations should be in place before they resume transportation of live animals. There is no doubt that in future agricultural production in the European Union will have to be more animal friendly. There are 2.5 million vegetarians in Britain and the consumption of red meat, which last year fell by 4 per cent in France and 8 per cent in Germany, is at best, static. The serious problems in the red meat industry have been mixed up with the welfare issue. I am trying to achieve a balance so that no shipping company can be accused of being the sole carrier of live animals, which would cause market damage to it in the UK. These are private companies and I cannot instruct them to transport live animals.
What will the Minister do?
I will put in place effective regulations which are indisputably animal friendly. That is the common position of the 15 member states. I have, therefore, attached great urgency to this issue and pointed out to the President and the Commissioner the need to deal urgently with this matter. Sealink and Pandora withdrew their services in September and October last year before I took office. I very much appreciate Irish Ferries' understanding of this issue and of the importance of this trade to the economy. I hope all shipping companies will reassess their positions after the new regulations are agreed, which I hope will be next Tuesday.
Much of the recent agitation has been caused not so much by the alleged maltreatment of animals during transport but by the ill-tratment of them at their destination. This is certainly true in the case of calves exported to France where certain methods are used to rear them. Will the proposed directive or regulations which may be passed next week cover points such as this as well as the treatment or welfare of animals in transit as there are two aspects to the problem? Does the Minister agree that farmers are concerned to retain a live cattle export trade for the simple reason that when the live trade was negligible in the past the beef processing companies operated a cartel at the marts which kept the prices for cattle below the proper market level and they fear there would be a repetition?Their fears could be allayed if the Minister, or the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, took steps to ensure that such price fixing cartels would not be allowed to operate in the future. The country would not then be as dependent on the live trade.
I also share that view. There is a need to strike a balance to create buoyancy to meet demand, particularly in the autumn when large numbers of cattle are taken off grass. The question of veal production is a separate issue. It was decided at the January meeting of the Council of Ministers to commission a scientific veterinary report on veal production in which the method of production in veal crates — this has been heavily criticised — would be reviewed and the method used in Holland, group housing, would be considered.Many factors have to be taken into account. We have to strike a balance in the beef and veal trade because if the system was to break down an extra one million tonnes of beef would be placed on the market as only certain breeds of cattle are suitable for veal production — the Holstein crosses. I hope to receive an interim report by the middle of the year. There is no veal production here and our rate of consumption is very low. This problem mainly affects Holland and France. We will be happy to support any changes recommended by the scientific veterinary committee in this report.
Deputy Cowen rose.
As the House will observe, the time available for priority questions is exhausted. I will, however, hear two final questions from Deputies who tabled questions on the subject.
The Minister said he is interested in achieving a balance as between the number of cattle exported on the hoof and the number exported on the hook. In 1992, approximately one in 20 cattle was exported on the hoof, the number now stands at one in five, possibly one in four. What would the Minister consider to be an acceptable balance which would be consistent with the development of our food industry? What measures would he be prepared to support in this regard?
I said that the figure of 405,000 was too high. It would be invidious to mention specific figures——
Why?
——but it could be reduced by at least one-quarter.
Is the Minister referring to the steer trade or weanlings?
Calves and weanlings account for 65,000 of that number and adult cattle exported to North Africa, 270,000. They are different trades; as the Deputy said, only those breeds are suitable for veal production. They want dairy heifer replacements.
What about the steer trade?
I will review this matter.
The Minister is not prepared to say.
I am not avoiding any issue.
The Minister is avoiding it.
It is a matter for DG VI to decide what the refund should be. We will have an input in monitoring the market. It may well be the case that the position in September will be different from that in May; there is no definite line in the sand, it will depend on supply and demand.
If there is good news it will be a matter for the Minister and if not, for DG VI.
The Minister has confirmed that it was decided at the beef management committee meeting in Brussels to reduce the export refund for live cattle by 5 per cent. He has to accept that this is a black mark against him. Will he give me a categorical assurance that he will not compound his failure by increasing the veterinary inspection fee? Is the Minister aware that there was a vote yesterday at the European Parliament on the question of a maximum time limit of eight hours? Does he propose to lobby his counterparts to ensure no such limit is accepted?
That should be adequate, Deputy.
Will he give a commitment that he will face down any attempt to curtail the live export trade on which many farm families depend?
They are multiple choice questions——
We have been given multiple choice answers.
I can stay here all day if need be.
The Minister does not need much time.
On the question of adjustments to the export refund my policy and instructions may be compared at any time with the record of my predecessor, in terms of the votes taken at any management meeting.
It is the same.
The Minister has to do it.
I think the Deputies will find that those directly involved, the farmers, will be perfectly happy with the stance I have taken.
The Minister has a good PR machine.
On the question of veterinary inspection fees this was another nightmare. There were arrears of over £6 million which were the subject of litigation.There was also the prospect of a further Supreme Court appeal. Last week after much work a compromise offer was made to avoid further litigation.I urge the meat processers to accept it. On the question of the time limit of eight hours——
Is the Minister going to increase it?
The Deputy has asked some questions and he should listen to the Minister's replies.
He has not replied.
The Chair has been very lenient in dealing with this matter.
There is a legal obligation on the Department——
Yes or no?
——to charge a fee which meets the economic cost of the service. Our veterinary costs are excessive and unjustifiable. I am considering how we can reduce them. From time to time the directives will be reviewed.
So the Minister is going to increase it?
The difficulty is that the Deputy does not want to hear the answer to the five questions.
If the Deputy wishes to intervene he should rise in his place.
I have not received any answer yet.
The Deputy may not cross-question from a seated position; it is out of order.
He is being bullish.
On the time limit of eight hours, I would not be prepared to agree to any time restriction which would discriminate against our island status. I am mindful of the fact that it takes 18 hours to travel by sea from this country to the Continent. On the detailed arrangements to meet our special needs, I will be flexible.
