Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 Apr 1996

Vol. 464 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Beef Industry Crisis: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Deputy Cowen on Tuesday, 16 April 1996:
That Dáil Éireann, mindful of the importance of the beef industry in Ireland and the essential national interest involved, calls on the Government to confront the deep crisis in the industry by achieving a determined practical response at European Union level to the immediate situation and further calls on the Government to restore customer confidence in Irish beef both at home and abroad by taking the required political action necessary to achieve this objective.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all the words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann, mindful of the importance of the beef industry in Ireland and the essential national interest involved, commends the efforts of the Government to confront the crisis in the industry, to restore consumer confidence in Irish beef and to secure the reopening of vital export markets".
—(Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry.)

I propose to share time with Deputy Sargent. I am glad of the opportunity to speak on the serious situation which has developed in the meat industry. The BSE scare has affected many livelihoods and serious costs could be incurred by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. It is unfortunate given that this country was responsible in ensuring that all infected animals were slaughtered. There were virtually no outbreaks of BSE.

Recently we spoke about the 40,000 beef producers. In areas like mine three quarters of farmers are cattle producers, while only one quarter are milk suppliers. This crisis has come on top of the fines in relation to export refunds, which were reduced, the substantial increase in feed prices and the high cost of store cattle. Cattle producers face considerable problems.

Garda surveillance must now be provided along the Border. I pay tribute to the Garda in this regard. A heavy demand has been placed on it since it was decided to close the Border to cattle and meat products. The Garda must provide surveillance 24 hours per day seven days per week and also keep check on heavy traffic across the Border, which includes refrigerated and grain lorries. Since the opening of Border roads, traffic in both directions has increased. It will be a costly operation for the Department of Justice.

It was regrettable that following the restoration of beef slaughtering and the agreement with the rendering plant the plants came out with 88p to 92p per pound for cattle. The IFA and a number of other sources claimed that it should have been 97p. I appeal to the slaughter plants not make heavy losses more severe by cutting back on that 5p or 6p per pound which would make a difference. I hope this matter will be resolved to the satisfaction of the Department.

Teastaíonn uaim cupla rud a rá mar gheall ar an bhfadhb seo, fadhb na mairteola. I ndáirire, baineann sé le hÉirinn ina iomlán.

It is a sad day that we must discuss this crisis in the House, but we must say what needs to be said. We must make sure actions and measures are taken which will ensure that we do not find ourselves in this sorry situation again. Over the past number of years there were opportunities to establish and enhance the good name of Irish food, but, I am sorry to say, the Green Party feels that many of these opportunities were squandered. When we had an opportunity to opt for a less intensive and more healty type of food production, we circled so to speak the cosy cartel which supports intensive and conventional agricultural methods which have, in many ways, led to this crisis.

It is a pity An Bord Bia did not market Irish beef with the country of origin marked clearly and unequivocally so that there would not have been confusion in the international market. It is also a pity that consumers have been kept in the dark as regards the contents of food products as this has resulted in a reactionary response. Consumers are fast catching up in terms of the deficit of knowledge which they have experienced until now. Consumers will be aware from the newspapers that BSE is difficult to destroy, it jumps from species to species, mutates in the receiving host and its incubation can last for up to ten years. The political system under which we operate is helpless when it comes to dealing with short-term pressures and the overriding need to ensure that we do not face this crisis again, even if it is one of perception rather than reality.

The Green Party wants eight measures to be taken on board. First, a monitoring and inspection task force should be available to all farms where there has already been a case of BSE to check regularly animals, soil and water, etc., and to track down all imported animals over the past five years and the progeny of imported embryos. Second, we must pursue relentlessly here and in Europe a policy of country of origin to enable both the responsibility of the producer and the loyalty of the consumer to be forged.

Third, we must immediately establish an independent statutory food safety council comprising representatives from grass roots consumer groups, small food producers, farmers and environmentalists. Fourth, we must establish a standing Dáil committee on food safety. Fifth, we must end the cartel in the meat industry and give grant aid instead to the farmer owned meat co-operatives which would not leave farmers open to exploitation when they could least afford to combat it and which would help bring about a realistic debate on live exports and phasing out that practice.

Sixth, we must genuinely support organic farming which is governed by rigorous standards which must be reached before symbols can be granted in areas such as soil, inputs and the humane treatment of animals. Seventh, we must look for methods to protect the taxpayer from having to pay for the mistakes of this and previous Governments, the European obsession with transboundary trade and the real price of intensive agriculture. This crisis shows that the cost of conventional agriculture is often not taken on board when we look at this price in the beginning. Finally, we should stop the ambiguous talk about lifting the ban on feeding bonemeal to pigs and poultry. I warn the Government that consumers will not tolerate such ambiguity and, ultimately, their decision will be crucial for the future of agriculture as we know it.

The Government should take on board the fact that An Bord Bia is not a food safety council. It is designed to promote the production and marketing of produce, not to deal with food safety implications and the health worries of consumers. This needs to be taken on board because otherwise confidence will not be restored as it ought to be.

I wish to speak for five minutes, to give five minutes of my time to Deputy Crawford and the remainder to Labour and Democratic Left.

This issue is most serious and its full gravity is not grasped by most people. From the point of view of the people I represent, it is sheer disaster. I know farmers who have sheds full of cattle and no place for them to go. Their income has gone and we should start from this point. I cannot address in five minutes an issue which one could talk about for five hours. I have no problem with some of Deputy Sargent's points but he is taking some licence with the idea that BSE can jump from one species to another. There is no professional, veterinary or medical evidence that this is so. It is important to stress that there is no lateral spread of the disease.

Since 1989 we have taken a sensible and responsible approach in the way we handle BSE in our national herd and I congratulate the Government of the time. However, we did not get this across to the rest of the world in the way we should have. Our first priority at present is to get a reasonable sales outlet for the 40,000 cattle. I congratulate the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry for the revised intervention scheme and I hope factories will not play footsie with it. If the boning allowance is increased, as I hope, there is no reason factories should not be able to pay substantially more than 92p, 93p or 94p per pound.

Our second priority should be to make the most concerted effort imaginable from a sales point of view in every market in the world, whether it is for live or dead meat. We have a product which the world wants to buy. We have become aware of this priority, particularly in the past week or ten days.

I am taken aback by the fact that it has taken our marketing people so long to get our message across in the UK. A few days ago a survey was carried out at a meat counter in greater London in which ten housewives were asked for the countries of their preference with regard to beef. None of them mentioned Ireland. Some of them mentioned Aberdeen Angus beef from the hills of Scotland. This is a myth but a good tactical marketing ploy from the Scottish marketing board. An Bord Bia will have to do more than it is now doing.

One of the biggest problems facing the industry and the community is what to do with offal after the next five or six weeks. It cannot be burned because this would pollute the atmosphere, it cannot be buried because this would pollute water and it cannot be spread on land because this would spread TB and brucellosis. All we can do with it at the moment is to put it into meat and bonemeal which will not be used. Environmentalists, farmers and everybody else need answers to this problem extremely quickly.

From a marketing point of view, every animal in future should have a CV showing for each stage from farm to processor to export market, where it came from, what it was fed, the medicines it was given and, from a veterinary point of view, that it is clear of disease.

I thank the Opposition for giving us the opportunity to speak on this, but for a different reason than it put forward. It is important that we put the record straight with regard to what the Government has tried to do in a difficult situation. The world market for beef was closed down as a result of two days' discussion in the House of Commons. Our Government stepped in immediately to take whatever steps were necessary. The Minister for Justice, the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and, above all, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry and the Taoiseach did everything possible to deal with the situation. The use of gimmicks to suggest nothing was happening was a disservice to farmers and the nation at a time of great catastrophe.

The European market is important but the issue of third country markets became very important once the ban on British beef was imposed. Russia bought 120,000 to 130,000 tonnes of our beef last year and that market was kept open by the Government. Egypt bought 40,000 tonnes of our beef and 160,000 live cattle last year and that market was reopened in a matter of days by the intervention of the Minister and his officials and the direct intervention of the Taoiseach with the Egyptian prime minister. It took three years previously to open up markets in a much less difficult situation. The Saudi Arabian and Gulf markets remained open and they are buying 40,000 tonnes. Iran was highlighted as being a major market but it only bought 25,000 tonnes last year. Despite the best efforts of the Department's officials, all that is happening there is that meat is going into bonded storage and I hope the Minister and his officials will be able to get this released as quickly as possible.

The Government has been criticised for the lack of effort by An Bord Bia to market our beef. Shortly before this Government came to power, the previous Government allocated a budget of over £3 million for the promotion of food. This has now been increased to £15 million but much more must be spent. We should look at the amount spent by Heinz on promotion. It takes a great deal of money to promote a product and get it placed on the market. It is easy for people to say Irish beef should be on all the shelves in the UK and we would all love this to happen. The Minister made an effort a few months ago to start a major promotion of Irish beef there. However, a few people decided, supposedly in the interests of the country, to plant a bomb in Canary Wharf and that promotion had to be quickly dropped.

I am sick, sore and tired of the Opposition suggesting that the changes in the intervention system were easily achieved. This system as it existed three weeks ago was the result of negotiations by the former Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Joe Walsh, and the then Irish EU Commissioner and former Minister for Agriculture and Minister for Finance, Mr. Ray MacSharry. It was they who introduced the 340 kilogram rule and the 82p per lb. base for an intervention price. They have to be shown up for what they provided as a safeguard for this country if the problem arose. When the problem arose the Minister had to save us from a catastrophe.

A person I spoke to a few minutes ago said he was offered 95p per lb. for beef by a factory. Farmers in Northern Ireland are been offered a little over 80p per lb. Those cattle cannot be moved and the farmers do not know what will happen. Some people say that the British Government got a bonanza from Europe and that our Minister did not get anything. For the sake of this nation, its farmers and those employed in the industry we should deal with the facts and make it clear that we have had a problem. For once let us work together as parliamentarians to ensure that every market possible is reopened to our beef, the slaughter lines are maintained, the workers get paid and farmers get a reasonable return.

Mention of Commissioner MacSharry reminds me of the meeting attended by hundreds of farmers in Portlaoise last night. They were encouraged to get involved in deer farming as an alternative enterprise to beef production. However, they are now bankrupt. They believed deer farming was great when an individual bid £27,500 for a stag. Commissioner MacSharry was portrayed as the saviour of the Irish nation. The person who will be seen to be the saviour of the Irish nation, as far as agriculture is concerned, is none other than Minister Yates. He has worked tirelessly on behalf of Irish farmers and was supported by his Minister of State, his civil servants and diplomats in our embassies. We must vote confidence in the Minister, the Government and the Taoiseach for the tremendous efforts they have made to deal with the beef crisis.

I gather Deputy Cowen said that Dublin and urban TDs do not understand the problems of rural Ireland. I do not think that is quite fair or the case. Some of us remember them and I have a certain understanding of them. However, as a Dublin TD I wish the shoe was on the other foot and the challenge reciprocated. Many rural representatives do not understand the problems of Dublin.

Many Dublin public representatives have a great deal to learn from our rural colleagues in the art and science of lobbying at which they are first class. They may even be world leaders; I suspect that some of them are the best in the world. Other countries must look at them very carefully to imitate the tremendous technology, commitment, capacity and persistence they have developed over the years.

As a Dublin public representative I am doing my best to learn from them. I have a great deal to do before Dublin constituencies are represented to anything like the same level of effectiveness as rural areas. The amount of income tax collected in Dublin city, which has a huge drug and unemployment problem, is the highest of any area in the country yet the effectiveness and lobbying on matters is dismal compared to the efficiency and effectiveness of representation with which our rural colleagues are able to act.

On the more substantial question of BSE, I agree with Deputy Connaughton that every animal should have a CV. More precisely, every piece of meat should have a CV to the extent that its origin can be traced. If that is to occur great changes are required in the outlook of those who run and control Irish agriculture. Irish agriculture, and the Irish beef industry in particular, will have to restructure its approach to business. A marketing approach must be adopted as distinct from simply producing commodities and dumping them on the most convenient market or unloading them to the highest bidder. That is no way for a serious business with a turnover of almost £2 billion to operate in a developing economy.

Many people, particularly those in the farming sector and Opposition Deputies suggest that more money should be spent on marketing. That is incredible because a marketing strategy cannot be put together in a week, a fortnight or a month. Product perception, or the consumer's view of a product, is developed slowly and painfully over time. A significant effort has been made to do that. The same is true of research into BSE. One must build that capacity slowly and painfully over a prolonged period. Unless we are prepared to make that investment, we are simply going to have more of these crises.

To some extent what we are seeing now is an exaggerated form of what happened on a number of occasions since this disease was first encountered about 1986. If we were serious about confronting the great damage it could do to our economy we would not be relying on somebody in a supermarket chain in the United Kingdom sticking a green stamp on packages of meat. That is no way to do business. We should have developed the brands and we are now paying a very serious price for not having done so.

While this storm may blow over it will not disappear. We will be left with a residue of damage and I hope we will have learned from the painful lessons.

There are some central aspects to those painful lessons. For example, we will have to eliminate some of the carryon in the beef industry, including the use of hormones and angel dust. Some farmers have given their lives for angel dust. In the way that this end of the market accommodates itself, they changed it from a dust preparation to a liquid in order to save lives. It is much more difficult for people to kill themselves unless they drink the liquid. This activity has been well documented and we seem, as a country and an industry, to be unable to learn from the lessons of the past. It is high time we cleaned up our act.

Thankfully, BSE is not a great problem in this country. There have been about 124 cases, a number of which are directly traceable to animals and foodstuffs which came from the UK. It would be worthwhile trying to trace the cause of BSE in those cases which cannot be directly linked to food or animals which were imported from the UK. A greater effort should be made to figure out the cause.

Consumer attitudes and values will be crucial in this matter. We should learn to deal with food scares. It is a dull year when there is not a decent food scare. Most of the major food products have been the subject of scares: there was a scare about eggs in the UK which was made more colourful by Edwina Currie; radioactive fish are coming in from the seas off Sellafield; mutton and lamb from mountainous regions of the country picked up fallout from Chernobyl and there have been various food poisoning scares about poultry. We have not learned to deal with such scares. Our management of such problems is inadequate. The Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry should set up a unit to deal with these problems and develop some damage limitation expertise in handling scares. We must learn from the past because another scare cannot be too far away.

I agree with what has been said with regard to the efforts made by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry with regard to intervention. The Taoiseach has spent a lot of time telephoning world leaders on these issues and I compliment him on his work.

Last night I watched a couple of minutes of Deputy Cowen growling, snarling and venting his frustration at how effectively this Government has mobilised to confront a crisis not of its making. Deputy Cowen kept repeating a new mantra about how prominent members of this Government who made their political names from ballyragging the agricultural industry are now refusing to defend it. Deputy Cowen is wrong on both counts — no member of this Government, prominent or otherwise, ballyragged the agricultural industry and no member of this Government has refrained from pulling his or her weight in seeking to protect this industry and to restore consumer confidence.

I have never attacked this industry, although I have attacked some of the malpractices in the industry and the skulduggery, tax evasion and orchestrated wrongdoing of a small number of the main players in it. There is a wealth of conclusive findings about the extent of that wrongdoing and the record of the House will show that I and others raised these issues precisely because damage was being done to the industry and competitors were being unfairly done down or squeezed out. The most charitable thing — and it is charitable in the extreme — one can say about Deputy Cowen's party is that it turned a blind eye and the chickens have since returned to roost.

The Minister of State got an opportunity and did nothing.

Perhaps there is a silver lining to the cloud that has come across the Irish Sea. Perhaps the industry has learned lessons about the need for the industry itself to take ruthless measures to protect its high quality reputation from the small number who have no qualms about putting that reputation at risk to feed their own greed. We can have the cleanest, purest, high quality beef product in Europe, which I believe we have, and the best medical, scientific and veterinary experts testifying to that standard, but without consumer confidence it is worthless. Therefore, producers and processors must be prepared to publicly acknowledge the centrality of the consumer. We have an informed consumer policy and the livelihoods of producers and processors are inextricably linked to the choices they make.

In this crisis, it is a matter of some gratification to the Government that beef sales are back up to 90 per cent of normal levels and I acknowledge the contribution made by the expert advisory group I set up to restoring that level of consumer confidence. It is pathetic, therefore, to watch Deputy Cowen flailing around because I did my job effectively as Minister of State with responsibility for consumer affairs. It is churlish in the extreme that Deputy Cowen cannot bring himself to acknowledge the extraordinary industry, energy and tireless commitment of my colleague the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates, in dealing effectively with a crisis foisted on him from outside. If he could overcome his political bile, Deputy Cowen could make a positive contribution although sending him abroad in the role of ambassador is like sending Mike Tyson to ballet lessons.

Against this background, on 29 March I assembled an expert group to advise consumers, the Government and the trade, on the implications of the European Union export ban, which remains in place, on products derived from cattle slaughtered in the UK. The appointment of the group resulted from a meeting which I had with a delegation representing the grocery trade and RGDATA on 28 March. The terms of reference of the advisory group were to advise the Government, consumers, the retail, wholesale and distribution trades, food processors, and farmers, and to make such recommendations, if any, as the expert advisory group concluded were necessary in consequence of, or in order to implement, the decision of the European Commission of 27 March 1996.

The group was chaired by the Director of Consumer Affairs, an independent statutory officer. The group included representatives of: the Consumers' Association of Ireland; veterinary and administrative staff of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry; the Chief Medical Officer in the Department of Health; the Chairman of the Food Safety Advisory Board — a statutory body established by order of the Minister for Health in 1995; staff of the Department of Enterprise and Employment; RGDATA; five large retail multiples and IBEC.

I felt it important that the group should have a strong consumer voice as well as being supported by scientific, medical and veterinary personnel. The group met on 30 March and 2 April. In addressing the group at its inaugural meeting, I emphasised it was being given a free hand in conducting its affairs and that there would be no attempt by me or any other member of the Government to influence its work in any way. More importantly, I assured the group that if, during the course of its work, evidence was uncovered which would point to real or potential health risks associated with the consumption of beef or products containing beef, the information would be put into the public domain without delay.

Arising from its meeting on 30 March, the group issued a statement that, based on the best medical, scientific and veterinary advice currently available, there was no need for consumer concern relating to foodstuffs on the shelves containing minimal beef derivatives or products such as Irish beef, gelatine or dairy products, and that consumer helplines had been installed in the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs.

At its meeting on 2 April, the group formulated guidelines on beef and beef products, a copy of which I circulated earlier today with the reply to a parliamentary question. It is important to note that these guidelines received the whole-hearted endorsement of all group members. The guidelines are in the form of a series of questions and answers relating to products and issues which had been most commonly voiced by consumers.

In particular, the guidelines address such issues of concern as the effect of the EU export ban; whether Irish beef, Irish beef products, products which have an Irish beef content or Irish dairy products are safe to eat; the parts of the animal affected by BSE and if there is a risk of the spinal cord or the brain of an infected animal entering the food chain; the position of animals in herds where there is a case of BSE and whether products from these animals can enter the human food chain; the safety of products such as meat pies or stock cubes made from UK beef or with a UK beef content and the safety of beef lard, gelatine, UK dairy products, cosmetics and pet foods. I am pleased to inform the House that, in view of the expert group, all the products referred to are safe to consume. This view is based on the best scientific, medical and veterinary advice available to the group.

Moreover the Food Safety Advisory Board, a statutory body established in 1995 by the Minister for Heath reaffirmed last week that Irish beef and products derived from it are safe.

It is difficult to imagine a more important area than food quality and purity where the rights and expectations of the consumer must be paramount. If consumers cannot trust the quality and purity of our food, we are in trouble. Ireland, as a major world producer of food, must have the highest standards, rigorously enforced and effectively policed. Because of the importance of food production and processing to our economy and international trade, we must not have a shadow of suspicion attaching to our production. That is why, in the case of BSE, Irish Governments have acted decisively from the moment the disease was identified and shown to be transmissable. From the outset, we have developed a policy based on: making BSE a compulsory notifiable disease; the establishment of an active BSE surveillance programme; a ban on the feeding to ruminants of protein products originating from ruminants; complete destruction of all infected cattle; and the slaughter and exclusion from the food chain of all cattle in herds in which the disease has been diagnosed. Would that the United Kingdom authorities had acted in the same fashion.

I propose to share my time with Deputies Nolan, Moynihan and O'Malley. We are not here to score political points. If the scare is not overcome, there will be tremendous and horrifying consequences for this country. I wish I was as confident as the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, that there is only a 10 per cent reduction. Most people involved, family butchers, in particular, have found the reduction to be much bigger. They also find the return to beef consumption is not as fast as it was in the case of other scares which affected the industry some time ago.

We are worried about the future of the industry. We dealt with and controlled BSE but we are worried about the damage being done by this scare. BSE is now seen as being a major source of health problems. This crisis has been caused by our near neighbours, the British Government, who failed to take positive action and who were responsible for allowing wet rendering in meat and bonemeal plants, which led to the present crisis. It was a money saving exercise and we all know that a penny saved can sometimes later cost many pounds. That is exactly what is happening at present.

We have no need to examine the background. Irish Governments have dealt with the disease in a positive manner since it first appeared. The slaughter policy gave consumer confidence which enabled the meat industry to continue and enabled farmers to stand over the produce they sold. There is now a need to introduce full tests for residue on every carcase. The estimated cost is approximately £7 per carcase. The consumer confidence that would be induced by spending that £7, or approximately 1p per pound, would outweigh the cost of providing such tests. I appeal to the Minister of State, as I appealed to the Minister at question time on a previous occasion, to examine the possibility of introducing the test for all carcases. It would create confidence and remove any question about carcases which might contain clenbuterol or any other jungle juice. These substances are used unscrupulously by some people and, as Deputy Upton said, have led to the death of greedy people. It is sad that people are prepared to put their lives on the line and other people's lives at risk for enormous personal financial gain. Until such tests are implemented we will have confidence problems.

The Minister should press at European level for a restoration of the refunds on exports to September 1995 levels. The problems with intervention are well known and the grading of intervention carcases must be clarified in the not too distant future. The prices proposed for intervention carcases are not what anybody expected. In fact, the President of the IFA stated in a press release today that the proposed intervention should yield no less than 97p per pound. That is only the "break even" position for those who have winter cattle.

The need to restore long-term confidence to consumers is a more serious problem which must be examined. There is not any danger to anybody from the consumption of Irish beef. Indeed, it is unusual to see our friends in the north now decide that all their cattle are Irish. However, we all know they have imported cattle directly from England and Scotland for several years because there are no health regulations in Northern Ireland on imports from Britain. If they wish to achieve the same status as this part of the island, they should impose a ban on the import into Northern Ireland of cattle from countries which do not meet the same health regulations.

The BSE scare has brought a crisis but presents a golden opportunity to make a new efficient positive market image for Irish beef. If the Minister decided to introduce a mandatory test for all carcases, European consumer confidence in the Irish product would rise quickly. Consumers in world markets want to buy a superior product and are willing to pay a handsome premium for it.

It is sad that certain factories once told farmers that if their cattle had not been treated with growth promoters or clenbuterol, they would not take them. I hope such practices have now ceased. However there is a need for a clean bill of health for every carcase. I appeal to the Minister of State to ask the Minister to introduce mandatory post and pre-mortem tests on all animals at the first available opportunity and ensure that anybody found to be in contravention of the regulations will pay the necessary price by being banned from involvement in the production of meat. It is unfair that those who do the job right should be penalised for the sins of others.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this second Fianna Fáil motion in a number of weeks on this matter. The complacency of the Government is incredible. It is unfortunate that the Fianna Fáil Party must put down another motion to highlight the inaction by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry and his colleagues. Indeed, the Taoiseach had to be brought roaring and screaming to telephone President Mubarak when two Irish shiploads of live cattle were bound off the coast of Egypt. He was pressurised by my party, the IFA and the beef industry to pick up the telephone. Although we succeeded in landing those two shipments, I understand another ship was lying off the Egyptian coast up to last weekend. It is incredible to see the lamentable efforts being made by the Government. The Tánaiste has effectively side-stepped this issue. He travels all over the world to various engagements but when we want him to visit our important export markets he is not available.

The Government has been strong on rhetoric concerning their efforts on behalf of the beef industry but they have done little to effectively reassure beef producers that the problem will be resolved. There is a distinct lack of confidence among consumers, not just here but on the European mainland, about eating beef. A recent survey showed that German housewives do not differentiate between Irish and British beef. It is well known that as far as German and French consumers are concerned the problems in England reflect on the purchase of Irish beef in continental supermarkets.

Some 50 cases of BSE are being discovered every day in England. As Deputy Ellis said, meat factories here have a lot to answer for in so far as the problems experienced with the illegal use of promoters like angel dust are concerned. If this problem does nothing else, it will focus the attention of meat producers on what consumers are looking for, which is higher production standards for carcase beef and meat production generally.

The failure of the Government to respond in an effective political manner in our export markets underlines its apathy to the beef industry. Because of the problems with export refunds in the latter half of 1995, and the strength of the Irish punt in relation to sterling, beef farmers have been experiencing a difficult time. Coming on top of it, this will cause severe problems for many producers. I understand the Minister for Agriculture has embarked today, although somewhat belatedly, on a tour of continental markets to try to reassure consumers about the safety of Irish beef.

The Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, said:

The food safety advisory board, a statutory body established in 1995 by the Minister for Health, reaffirmed last week [which is six weeks after the crisis first broke] that Irish beef and products derived from it are safe [to eat].

This is typical of what the Government has failed to do for beef producers.

Tá áthas orm an seans seo a bheith agam labhairt ar an bhfadhb seo. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. The beef industry comprises 6 per cent of domestic produce yet the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry does not seem to realise the crisis that farmers and the nation as a whole face. He has allowed the REPS to grind almost to a halt preventing the payment of badly needed grants to the farming community in their hour of need.

I have a number of grant application approvals to farmers for the control of farm pollution scheme for which work was completed last year. These farmers are now being told they will have to wait 18 months to two years for their money. They are less well off farmers who, up to the introduction of this scheme by the former Minister, Deputy Joe Walsh, could not afford to build housing and control of farm pollution tanks. The Minister has placed them in a worse position because they borrowed money from the banks with the intention of paying back the biggest part of the loan with a grant for such buildings from the Department.

We should not wait while others destroy our beef industry. We must get to foreign markets early and promote our organic produce. The Minister is like the fire brigade, waiting for damage to be done before he acts. He should have organised a Government blitz to promote our beef so that we could obtain the best possible prices.

Some left wing members of the Government have little sympathy for the farming community. Their comments have been scornful of the beef industry and farm taxation, but they fail to realise that when farmers do well the country benefits, and when farmers do badly so does everyone else. The Government is not coming up with the goods and this will have an effect on the country.

We hear a lot about the intervention deal but it is not such a good deal. Cattle that are being graded and put into intervention this week will be worth 92p per lb. but, according to the intervention tender, next week cattle will be worth 87p per lb. which represents a drop of about £40 a head in one week. Before the BSE crisis broke, a cow weighing 700 lbs. was worth 88p per lb. at the factory which amounts to £616. Now the same animal is only worth 70p per lb., or £490, which is a drop of £126.

English farmers are receiving £500 per cow from the Government and Brussels which is about the same price they got before the crisis. Therefore, English farmers are not at any loss as a result of the breakout of BSE because the British Government negotiated a good deal with the EU. Irish farmers, however, are selling BSE-free beef at a great loss.

Instead of putting beef into intervention, the Minister and the Government should consider negotiating a deal with Brussels whereby the shortfall of beef sold on the open market could be subsidised for Irish farmers thus providing the same price animals were worth before the collapse of the trade.

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the current state of the beef industry and the uncertain position of beef producers. I am not happy with the way in which the Government handled this issue. The Minister, and in fairness previous Ministers, told us that one of the features of BSE was that it could not be transmitted from one species to another. Science has advanced since that statement was made; we now know it can move from sheep to cattle, it can be transmitted to cats through pet food and it has been transmitted to rats in laboratories. If it can be transmitted to those species, it would be unsafe to suggest it cannot be transmitted to man.

We must look at this as first a public health problem, second an animal health matter and third a financial problem — the latter two issues may be important but they are secondary to public health. Since human health is of paramount importance it strikes me as curious that the Minister for Health has succeeded in keeping entirely out of this controversy, despite the fact that the British Secretary of State for Health took a leading place in the debate there. The contribution of our Minister for Health consisted in publishing, within the last few days, a report from a food advisory group on this question.

It seems to be the accepted wisdom here that we blame the British, in particular their Government, for this. I inquired recently as to what the British are alleged to have done wrong in their handling of the matter in the last month. Although it will never be said directly in public, what they did wrong was tell the truth. They placed before Parliament and the British public the facts which had been conveyed to them by the Edinburgh research institute about BSE and its relationship to CJD. Telling the truth in this field is regarded by many as culpable, but if they had not placed the facts before the British Parliament and public, what attitude would have been taken when the truth came to light afterwards? It is frightening and unacceptable that the official attitude in Ireland is that we would be better off it we did not know the truth and the facts were concealed.

Central to the British position is their decision to challenge the EU's order in the courts, and they have a reasonably good prospect of success. The difficulty from their viewpoint is that it will take many months to establish that, which gives everyone else a breathing space. Do we really have the leeway? The official attitude here is not to disclose all the facts. I am reminded of that by events in Britain over the past few weeks which seem not to have been adverted to or reported here but will have a serious effect on Irish beef exports to our largest single export market. On 28 March Mr. Douglas Hogg MP, the British Secretary of State for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, introduced Statutory Instrument No. 961 of 1996 called the Beef (Emergency Control) Order, 1996, section 2 of which prohibits the sale of beef from older bovine animals:

No person shall sell for human consumption any meat derived from a bovine animal slaughtered after the commencement of this order which at the time of slaughter showed signs of more than one pair of permanent incisors.

Our beef must be seriously affected by that order because a large proportion of the beef we would normally send to Britain is caught by that prohibition. Much of our cow beef goes to Britain for burgers, etc., all of which would be over two and a half years old and have more than two permanent incisors, and a lot of our heavier steer beef would be in the same position.

It would be bad enough if everyone was caught by the same regulation but on Friday last, 12 April, Mr. Hogg made an amending order, No. 1091 of 1996, called the Beef (Emergency Control) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order, 1996, which provides that:

The previous order shall not apply to meat from a bovine animal slaughtered in any of the countries specified in the schedule to this order.

The schedule contains 16 countries, none of which is in the EU: Argentina, Australia, Botswana, Brazil, Mauritius, Namibia, New Zealand, Paraguay, Poland, South Africa, Swaziland, Uruguay, the United States of America and Zimbabwe. The British are entitled to import beef of any age from those countries and the quotas at present for the EU are 53,000 tonnes under GATT, 53,000 under the Hilton quota and approximately 18,000 under what is called the "balance sheet scheme" for manufactured beef. They are hitting back on two levels — through the courts, which is a longer-term measure, and in imports from other countries. Since Ireland is not exempted from this measure, we are in a worse position than we thought because the British may well decide to import large quantities of beef from these other countries with or without the agreement of the Commission.

This is a serious development which has not been adverted to yet in this country. It seems a significant proportion of our normal beef exports to Britain will be prevented by this order, which has not yet been realised. I would like to hear what the Minister proposes to do about this.

I thank Deputies for their contributions. Since my time is short, I cannot answer the various questions raised, otherwise I would not have time to make my contribution.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in the debate on behalf of the Government and to support the amendment to the motion which was tabled by the Minister last night. The Government, and the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry in particular, have pulled out all the stops over the past four weeks since the commencement of the BSE crisis to restore consumer confidence and to secure the reopening of vital export markets. Furthermore, we have persuaded the European Commission of the severity of the crisis facing the beef sector and the intervention system has been overhauled, at our request, to provide an effective support for the market.

The Minister outlined in some detail last evening the various measures taken to restore consumer confidence in beef as a safe, healthy and high quality product. These measures include the destruction of the herd where a BSE case is diagnosed to ensure that the meat from animals in the herd does not enter the food chain. A special expert advisory committee has been established under the chairmanship of the Director of Consumer Affairs to provide an independent evaluation of the facts relating to BSE. The Food Safety Advisory Board, which reports to the Ministers for Health and Agriculture, Food and Forestry, has also reviewed recent developments. I am satisfied that these measures have been successful and their effectiveness has been demonstrated by the opinion polls carried out by some of our newspapers.

Our efforts have also been concentrated on providing assurances to authorities and customers in our major markets about the safety and quality of Irish beef. These efforts have ranged from political intervention at the highest level to diplomatic offensives and technical discussions at official level. The successful outcome of these efforts is reflected in the fact that Irish beef is accepted in all countries of the European Union and in most countries of the Middle East, North Africa and Russia. I have no doubt that these actions have paid handsome dividends and that but for the prompt action of the Government at all levels a far greater number of countries would have imposed a ban on Irish beef. I emphasise that there is no justification for any ban on Irish beef and we are committed to making every effort in ensuring that any such ban is removed as soon as possible.

In fact, the Minister is travelling to Libya later this week——

About time.

——to put our case to the Libyan authorities to secure the reopening of this most important market for Irish live cattle and in particular to ensure that this market is reopened in time for the forthcoming tender.

Both my Department and An Bord Bía will be working hard to ensure that Irish beef remains on the supermarket shelves in every member state of the Europen Union. I am also asking the Commission to increase the funding for the promotion of beef to promote beef as a quality product. Such a measure would encourage increased consumption, which would be very much to the advantage of the Irish beef trade. A concerted promotion campaign at the right time is vital to recovery from the effects of the BSE crisis.

Apart from reassuring consumers and securing the reopening of major markets, my Department's efforts have been directed at providing assistance to Irish beef producers, particularly through the reintroduction of intervention. While I am dissappointed that intervention purchasing is necessary, it is the most effective support available in the circumstances.

I am particularly pleased with the major improvements in the intervention system which were agreed last week and I am convinced that we now have in place an intervention system which is capable of dealing with the problem. These improvements, particularly the lifting of the weight limit, were hard won and only came after the direct intervention of the Minister with Commissioner Fischler. I ask producers and processors to fully avail of the system, in particular to dispose of the heavier animals.

I accept that intervention is not the complete solution to the current market difficulties. For this reason, the conclusions of the emergency council in Luxembourg last week provided for additional income aid to be given to beef producers through the premium system should market conditions so require. I intend to avail of this provision to seek additional aid for our producers. My view is that any additional aid should be targeted at those producers who have suffered most from the current crisis and my Department will be analysing the situation as it develops.

It is clear from what I have just outlined and from the information given by the Minister to the House yesterday that the Government does not have to be forced by a motion before this House to act swiftly to protect the interest of the Irish beef industry. The Government at all levels has put enormous energy into confronting this crisis and has been extremely successful in its efforts. There has been a co-ordinated approach and total commitment has been forthcoming from our diplomatic corps and the various agencies, including An Bord Bía. Most third country markets have remained open to Irish beef as a direct result of the intervention by the Government and, equally importantly, a comprehensive intervention system has been put in place to deal with the market consequences of the crisis. I strongly commend the amended motion to the House.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Cowen. I commend my colleagues for bringing this important debate before the House. This is the second time there has been a major debate at our instigation. It says something about this Government that it takes a watchful and vigilant Oppostion to be in place so that a major concern like this can be usefully and properly addressed. Despite the Government Deputies' statements, it did not attach any weight or importance to the issue or address it with any urgency. Our colleagues had to travel abroad over the Easter weekend and give a strong push to restore confidence in our beef products.

Coincidentally, we also put down a priority question to the Minister for Enterprise and Employment relating to the "expert group" established by the Minister which met on two occasions. Only that this is an important issue, one would be inclined to laugh. It met on 30 March and 2 April. The Minister listed the individuals involved in the group. While they are expert in their own way, it took them only two brief meetings under the chairmanship of William Fagan to conclude that the situation was all right and that consumers were satisfied as they pushed their trolleys around the supermarket on a Saturday morning.

Our spokespersons have taken a twin-track approach to the matter. All the efforts made by the producers, including the introduction of intervention — it is sad that this has to come about — will be of no avail if the consumer is not satisfied. After all, they purchase the product. I cannot understand why there is a perceived dichotomy between these points of view. If one has a satisfied consumer, one will have a good product. The consumer will not buy a product unless they are satisfied with it.

This group should operate within the Department of Enterprise and Employment — I do not care where it is sited eventually. There is a need for a standing committee of such a group which would not only meet when there is a crisis, as was the case with this one, but would be available within its various realms of experience to meet, discuss, proffer, advise and act on same. It is not good enough to believe that all wisdom resides in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry on this matter. Of course, the Department knows its business as far as producers are concerned but it does not exist for the benefit of consumers. It is mainly there because producers, who have great strength and influence, get what they want. This is a short-sighted point of view. If they got everything in the world but the consumer was not satisfied or does not have a tranquil mind about the product they wish to buy, one is building more and more for intervention and we do not want to go down that road again.

Consumer issues, which are nobody's issue when all is well and everybody's issue when all is not, should be operated by a single Minister who would look after their needs in food, travel and a host of other issues. Apart from the motions we put down on two occasions and the many opportunities our spokesperson has taken to bring consumers into the equation, the references to them and the efforts towards satisfying their fears are paltry and unsatisfactory. I suggest that the committee which has been set up should meet regularly on a standing basis so that they are not hauled out when there is a crisis and pushed back into the shadows when things return to normality. The consumer is king in this area.

I thank all the Deputies who have contributed to this debate, which has been acknowledged as important, not just by the Fianna Fáil Party but by the Minister.

As Deputy O'Rourke has said, it is quite clear that the customer is king. When Fianna Fáil returned to office in 1987 there was a reorganisation in the Department of Agriculture and Food to ensure that a Minister of State with responsibility for food was appointed to the purpose of redirecting the Department's orientation from producers towards consumers and processors, so as to build a modern food industry which would look towards the consumer and the processor as being just as essential in the production of quality food as the producer.

One of the problems with the perception of this industry since this new Administration took over is the fact that the Government has refused to build on the good work done by Deputy Brown and Deputy Walsh. The Minister of State with responsibility for food had a responsibility not simply to deal with producer interests but to ensure that the consumer was also informed and involved in what has to be a continuing education about what we eat and how pure and quality driven our food industry has become.

There is a perception that since the Minister, Deputy Yates, took office, we have had a farm-oriented ministry as distinct from an agriculture and food oriented ministry. The one agenda which he has constantly pursued, as I have had to point out on a number of occasions, is the idea that the producer is king. It is not realistic to think that producers could in some way secure their future without reference to the processor and the consumer at home and abroad. This fact has escaped the Minister in deciding on his strategy and in building on the excellent work done by his predecessors in previous Fianna Fáil-led Administrations.

I will deal with the Minister's response, which is critical. However much we highlight the current situation, we must also focus on our political responsibility and find a way to work our way out of this catastrophe which has enveloped the Irish food industry, and beef producers particularly, over the past months. The Minister said that a lot has happened in the four weeks which have elapsed since 20 March when the House of Commons announced its decision. I agree with him. He listed what happened, but failed to list, because it is impossible to do so, what he has actively done about it. He refers to the fact that there is an alleged connection, that there is a scientific debate going on. That debate did not begin on 20 March, it has been going on for eight or ten years since it was first proven that BSE was in the UK beef herd.

There seems to be no question of the Department having anticipated what the outcome would be were it to be suggested, even in a tangential sense that there might be a certain variant of BSE which is transmissible to humans and that the ten cases they discovered perhaps have their origin in the fact that contaminated meat and bone meal were fed to cattle in the UK. There seems to have been a panic stricken reaction.

I heard the Minister of State with responsibility for consumer affairs speak in this House tonight about the fact that Irish trade is back at 90 per cent of its usual level. I have noticed the media talking about this as well, without any reference to the export trade. We do not have normality in the trade. Consumption may be up, but producers are taking heavy losses and if price levels are to remain the same, with the elimination of margins and the accumulation of losses which have occurred as a result of what has been going on during recent months before the BSE scare started, then there is no future for this industry at home or abroad.

The Minister of State for consumer affairs did not mention — one would have to excuse his ignorance since he does not know a lot about it — that the domestic market represents 5 per cent of the total. We are the biggest exporters of beef in the Northern hemisphere, we are in the business of exports, of satisfying international markets. The whole point of our motion is that no political assurances have been given to the industry abroad. No political assurances have been given in terms of a physical presence and a physical presence is required.

There was some suggestion from Deputy Crawford that political gimmickry is involved. There is no political gimmickry involved in trying to maintain the essential national interest. When he spoke about the relative unimportance of the Iranian market, I would refer him to the Minister's speech which referred to the importance of the Iranian market. If we expect to be able to reopen markets by coming into our national Parliament and running down the significance of these markets, the Minister should not be surprised if he does not get a welcome when he goes to those countries on the basis that their trade is not very important to the Irish beef industry. At the moment, any outlet that will take the overhang off the market is critical to the future of the beef industry and to the producers and processors who are taking heavy losses.

I know that Deputy Liam Burke is in here to represent the farmers of Cork North Central but I am trying to reach beyond the housing estates of Knocknaheeney to people with a far more significant contribution to make to the Irish agriculture industry. The Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan, is here and I would respect his potential contribution if he were allowed to make a contribution to ensuring our markets are secured abroad. He is well qualified and capable of going to those markets and speaking to his opposite numbers. Deputy Deenihan was sent to Sweden, which the Minister said is a very discerning market. I have the Bord Bia figures for beef exports and I am sorry to say that Sweden does not rank amongst the most important. Deputy Crawford wishes to run down the fact that we seek to secure a market of 25,000 tonnes. I am sure the Minister of State will get an opportunity to confirm that the Swedish market is not of the same significance. My argument is that the Minister of State should be allowed to travel to all of our markets, as he is well capable of doing, while the Minister is involved in Council of Ministers meetings or trying to deal with the domestic situation. It appears the Minister feels that he is the only one in the Department of Agriculture at a political level who is in a position to deal with this issue and that is to the detriment of this administration. I say that genuinely, although the number of Ministers of State in that Department was reduced by one when this Government took over.

Deputy Rabbitte came into this House with his usual smart comments. He talks about people being ambassadors and I wish to make a comment about that. I have had the privilege of serving in two Administrations. I hope, and there is certainly no evidence to the contrary, that I have served this country with distinction on any of the visits I made. Anything I did in Iran was in support of the technical experts who were giving technical assistance to the Iranian veterinary people and they received only praise from the Fianna Fáil delegation. I have never been involved, as Deputy Rabbitte has been in seeking the furtherance of his political career, in impugning the integrity of civil servants by making unfounded politically-based allegations which were the prelude to the beef tribunal report.

The Deputy made a smart aleck analogy about my being an ambassador. Many farmers throughout this country, whose livelihoods are at stake, doubt his interest in the Irish beef industry, given his track record both inside and outside this House and his refusal to deal with the tribunal in an open manner by revealing his so-called sources, which we all know were either anonymous or unknown. His interest in this matter is akin to Al Capone being in charge of the Central Bank.

If we are to deal with this situation responsibly let us remember one thing — the national interest of this country is at stake. If one takes the most important industry in any European Union country and multiplies its importance by four, one will get an idea of the significance of the beef industry to this country. The intervention system that has been put in place, given the price that will be tendered for next Friday, will result in accumulated losses for thousands of farm families. We look to this Government to bring forward a compensation package, which will gain EU approval, with the purpose of maintaining farm families in rural communities both now and in the future.

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 70; Níl, 58.

  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Bhamjee, Moosajee.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Bree, Declan.
  • Broughan, Tommy.
  • Browne, John(Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Bruton, John.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coveney, Hugh.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Dukes, Alan M.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Eithne.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Gallagher, Pat.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McDowell, Derek.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Mulvihill, John.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Penrose, William.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, John.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Sheehan, P. J.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Upton, Pat.
  • Walsh, Eamon.

Níl

  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Keaveney, Cecilia.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Brennan, Matt.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDaid, James.
  • McDowell, Michael.
  • Moffatt, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Morley, P. J.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Nolan, M. J.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donnell, Liz.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Malley, Desmond J.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá Deputies J. Higgins and E. Walsh; Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.
Top
Share