Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 May 1996

Vol. 464 No. 8

Rendering Industry Financing: Motion.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the payment of temporary financial assistance to the Irish rendering industry to ensure the continuation of its operations until 21 May, 1996.

As Members are aware, in accordance with the principles of Government accounting, legal authority for a new service, in the form of Dáil approval, must be obtained before any expenditure is incurred. I have, therefore, come before the House at the earliest possible opportunity to move a motion in respect of a new service to provide temporary financial assistance to the rendering industry.

Deputies will recall the stark situation which livestock producers, slaughterhouses and renderers faced immediately before Easter. Commercial outlets, either domestic or external, were not available for the meat and bonemeal being produced by the rendering industry. In the absence of alternatives and any form of cash flow from the sale of meat and bonemeal the rendering industry would have been forced to close its doors after Easter. It was announced that as and from Easter Tuesday it would not take any more offal for rendering. This would have resulted in the closure of all abattoirs, slaughterhouses and meat processing premises as national hygiene rules dictate that raw offal cannot be allowed to build up in such premises. I contrast this with the current situation. Last week 39,000 animals were slaughtered, a record for any one week in the last ten years in the meat processing industry.

I met the Federation of Irish Renderers and agreed to provide a breathing space for that industry to enable it to continue to accept offal and maintain its activities on behalf of all sectors of the livestock industry. The details of the scheme are as follows: it will run for a period of six weeks from 10 April to 21 May, inclusive; a fixed storage amount of £1.50 per tonne per week is payable in respect of stocks produced before 10 April, the maximum eligible amount is 10,000 tonnes — I was told at the time that there were stockpiles at this level for which there was no market; a fixed production amount of £150 is payable per verifiable tonne of meat and bonemeal produced in the period between 10 April and 21 May — this production assistance is limited to a maximum figure of 15,000 tonnes and this tonnage will also be eligible for storage assistance; in the event of any future disposal of meat and bonemeal produced in the six week period, any amounts received by the renderers up to £150 per tonne will be refunded to my Department; the maximum cost to the Exchequer of the scheme over the six week period should not exceed £2.5 million.

I stress particularly the temporary nature of the scheme. I do not want to leave anybody in any doubt about that. The general taxpayer should not be expected to continue to pick up the financial costs of arrangements for collection, treatment and disposal of offal. Clearly, these costs are a matter for discussion and agreement between the commercial parties directly involved as part of normal commercial business. What I have done is to make the services of my Department available as facilitator to those parties by establishing a framework for discussion. I have assigned an assistant secretary to chair meetings. Two such meetings have been held and further discussions are scheduled. I urge the various interests to make the best use of the opportunity presented and have a resolution in place by 21 May. The scheme will not run beyond that date.

While I do not wish to anticipate the outcome, in the prevailing circumstances, if the fifth quarter, as it is commonly known, has diminished in value or certain offals have a nil value, that should be reflected commercially between renderers, meat processors and producers. The two segments of the industry are linked and have close commercial contacts and it should not be an impossibility for them to resolve the matter between them, especially when a framework for discussion has been established. Whatever system is introduced it will not involve any statutory levies.

Commercial outlets for meat and bonemeal are restricted, but the rendering industry is a commercial sector producing a quality feeding stuff for commercial disposal. It withstood serious difficulties in 1990 and went on to develop export markets for its product. It has also embarked on a programme of modernisation to ensure full compliance with new EU directives. The disposal of livestock offal in the first instance can be considered an environmental issue. I see the destruction of meat and bonemeal as a last option and know that this view is shared by the different elements of the livestock industry. However, technical consideration is being given by a number of Departments and agencies to various non-commercial uses for meat and bonemeal in the event that such a situation has to be dealt with. I am determined that we should be in a position to deal with all eventualities, including incineration or land disposal.

It is also important to clarify the legal position as regards meat and bonemeal. There has been a prohibition on the feeding of ruminant meat and bonemeal to ruminants since 1990 in this country and, more recently, across the European Union. In the United Kingdom, as part of the measures taken on 20 March, a ban on the use of mammalian meat and bonemeal in feed for all farm animals, including pigs and poultry, was introduced. The UK authorities have explained this was for control reasons rather than scientific considerations. This measure has not been adopted by the European Union nor are individual member states, including Ireland, being encouraged to take unilateral actions. In those circumstances the United Kingdom is the only member state with such a broad based ban. Our inquiries indicate that the rendering industries in continental member states are continuing to produce meat and bonemeal for the pigs and poultry sectors.

Scientific discussions at which my Department is represented are ongoing through the EU Scientific Veterinary Committee on the various processes recognised as giving the best possible guarantees as regards killing BSE and sheep scrapie. We are making every possible effort to encourage clear-cut scientific guidelines to produce the framework for the continued commercial use of meat and bonemeal by non-ruminants, subject to production at the correct temperatures and in approved and validated premises. This will provide the basis for the continued commercial use of meat and bonemeal.

On the general BSE issue, it is clear that further work needs to be done to defuse the situation in the United Kingdom. The discussion at the Council of Ministers in Luxembourg this week represented a step forward, but the widely held view is that further amendments to the UK controls are needed to provide the required reassurances for member states. It is also clear that recovery in beef consumption will be slow and much effort will be required to restore consumer confidence. In that context the domestic market has fared better than most and some EU markets are showing small signs of recovery.

The flexible intervention arrangements have been critical in removing the backlog of fat cattle. Last week's kill was the highest in over a decade. I have also secured an undertaking that the Commission will review the situation before the next Council in the context of income losses suffered by producers. A further 50,000 tonnes will be placed in intervention this month. Up to 70 per cent of Irish cattle will be eligible.

Our efforts to secure the reopening of markets continue. I will travel to Libya in the middle of this month in relation to the live trade and an Iranian veterinary delegation is scheduled to come here soon after an exchange of veterinary letters at the highest level. Every conceivable effort is being made to get these markets reopened. I am in constant touch with ambassadors, both at home and abroad.

The subsidy for the rendering industry is an important element of our strategy to deal with the crisis. It has already proved its value in allowing the industry to continue to function normally at a very sensitive time.

I recommend the motion to the House and thank it for facilitating me at short notice. I understand the motion is not being opposed.

The motion seeks Dáil approval to implement a memorandum of understanding signed by the Federation of Irish Renderers and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry on 10 April. By passing and approving this memorandum of understanding we will enable payment to be made on foot of the provisions of the temporary financial package drawn up in the memorandum of understanding to ensure that the rendering industry will continue to process raw offal despite the collapse in the market for meat and bonemeal.

Since 20 March, when the British Government announced in the House of Commons that there may be a connection between BSE infected cattle and a new strain of CJD, consumer confidence in the meat industry has collapsed throughout Europe and further afield. That collapse of confidence has been exacerbated by the bad handling of the affair by the British Government. This has had a huge negative effect on the beef industry in every country of the European Union. It extends to those involved in the food business who render the offal which accumulates in the beef processing factories throughout the country.

Renderers produce important products such as tallow, meat and bonemeal from the raw material intake. These rendering companies handle offal, bone, fat, blood etc. from animals slaughtered at export and other slaughterhouse premises in the Republic. Based on An Bord Bia statistics, average slaughterings over the five year period 1990-94 were 1,612,000 cattle; 4,323,000 sheep and 2,966,000 pigs per year. These slaughterings in the Republic result in raw material from export and other slaughterhouse processing factories totalling 235,000 tonnes from cattle, 50,000 tonnes from sheep and 58,000 tonnes from pigs.

In addition to these raw materials renderers also process waste materials from butcher shops, knackers' yards, agents and collectors and fallen animals. On average over the last five years raw materials from these sources amounted to 80,000 tonnes per year. This means that the total annual processing of raw materials at rendering plants over the five year period 1990-94 was 423,000 tonnes. About 12 per cent of this raw material is rendered down to tallow which is basically the oil in the raw material used for soap, candles, ingredients in cosmetics and so on. A further 28 per cent of material is rendered down to meat and bonemeal and the remainder of the raw material, 60 per cent, is water.

When BSE was discovered in cattle it was decided at European level, at the instigation of the then Minister for Agriculture, Michael O'Kennedy, to ban the use of meat and bonemeal as feed for cattle and other ruminants. Meat and bonemeal, however, continue to be an important part of the feed for pigs and poultry, constituting 8 per cent of their feed intake. Following the announcement on 20 March the UK banned the use of bonemeal for all animals. In this country, meat and poultry producers decided voluntarily to stop using bonemeal in their feed even though it was not suggested that there was a problem with the feed of meat and bonemeal to pigs and poultry and no evidence of BSE in those animals. They are at present replacing meat and bonemeal with a high protein soya feed and the difference in price between it and the meat and bonemeal is £40 per tonne. However, there is a shortage of soya in the market, particularly in the production areas in Asia.

Before the BSE problem arose again in March, we had been producing about 125,000 tonnes of meat and bonemeal annually, 70 per cent of which was exported mainly to France, the Benelux countries and the UK in that order of importance and 30 per cent was used domestically, primarily by pig producers. Based on its present value of £170 per tonne, the value of the product is £21.5 million. Since 20 March there has been no market at home or overseas for this product. The renderers' association had discussions with officials in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry who confirmed to them on Good Friday that the Department could not provide any assistance to the renders or do anything about the matter.

On the basis that there was no outlet for their product, the renderers' association decided to close their plants the following Tuesday morning, 9 April. The implications of such closure were that the meat industry would be unable to slaughter as hygiene rules forbid the build-up of offal in plants. This meant that the meat industry, on which 9,000 jobs depend, with 6,000 jobs in secondary linked industries, was grinding to a halt because renderers were told officially by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry that no assistance could be given to them in these extraordinary circumstances. Obviously, there would be no commercial value in taking a product which costs over £90 per tonne to render down, excluding wage and energy costs, if there was nowhere to sell it. The Department had taken the extraordinary decision prior to the Easter weekend that this problem did not have anything to do with it. Such was the abysmal contingency planning in the Department that it thought the problem would simply go away.

Contact was made with the Minister over the Easter weekend to try to explain the gravity of the situation. On realising that continuing inaction on his part to address the issues would compound the emerging crisis in the industry he quickly arranged for a meeting on 9 April. Having been appraised of the magnitude of the problem by the industry at those meetings the memorandum of understanding, which is the subject of this motion, was agreed on Wednesday, 10 April. It must be emphasised that this is nothing but a temporary assistance scheme for the rendering industry, to run for a period of six weeks from 10 April to 21 May. There are two elements to the scheme: a storage assistance scheme with a weekly subsidy cost of £1.50 per tonne of meat and bonemeal stored and a production subsidy of £150 per tonne for each tonne of meat and bonemeal produced. The setting up of a subhead for this scheme was not sanctioned by the Department of Finannce until as late as 30 April. It is only now, by passing this motion today as we enter the fourth week after the memorandum of understanding was agreed with the industry, that payment will be made in respect of the 14,000 tonnes of meat and bonemeal which have been produced in the interim since 9 April. It is estimated that up to 25,000 tonnes will have been produced by 21 May. There is still no market for this product.

The Minister emphasised as far back as 9 April when announcing the scheme that should an outlet be found for this meat and bonemeal product the production subsidy would be recouped. He also emphasised that given the urgency of the matter a solution would have to be found within the industry as to how renderers would be paid for products for which there was no outlet and without which the meat industry would come to a halt.

I understand that only two meetings were held since 9 April under the aegis of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry to seek to resolve the matter. The first meeting, held a fortnight ago, simply outlined the magnitude of the problem. I understand a meeting was held earlier this week which set out the costs of replacing the meat and bonemeal value if a solution is not reached by 21 May.

In assessing the replacement value and dumping costs per animal, taking a sheep as one unit, the following ratios can be arrived at for the purposes of rendering: sheep 1, pigs 1.8 and cattle 13. Applying that ratio to the figures outlined, the total number of units processed at rendering plants last year was 30.61 million. Therefore, the meat and bonemeal value of one unit to a renderer was almost 70p. Assuming the cost of dumping meat and bonemeal at £50 per tonne and knowing there were 125,000 tonnes last year, the cost of dumping the product is £6.25 million or 20.5p per unit. On that analysis, assuming a zero value for raw material and a dumping cost of £50 per tonne, the cost is 90p per sheep, £1.62 per pig and in the case of cattle, £11.67 per beast.

Obviously, the cost per animal would be reduced if the market for meat and bonemeal were to reopen. For example, if it reopened at a reduced price of £100 per tonne the replacement cost per animal would fall to 29p per sheep, 51p per pig and £3.72 per head of cattle as there would not be any dumping costs. On the other hand, if the market remains closed and the product has to be dumped, the cost may be higher than £50 per tonne. Significant compensation will have to be made for the replacement value of the meat and bonemeal and dumping cost if no outlet is found. It would be £27.5 million annually. If a levy system is to be introduced at plants, it would mean a levy of 90p for every sheep killed, £1,60 per pig and almost £12 per head for cattle. There is no agreement on who will bear this cost. Neither the producer nor the processor has agreed to carry it. The producer, facing unprecedented losses of between £100 and £150 per animal, cannot be expected to bear a further cost of £12 per animal. It is difficult to see how the producer can avoid incurring these further costs as the alternative would be to bring the meat industry to a standstill. If the cost were levied on the processor it would be passed on. The Minister is not prepared to have a compulsory levy; he wants the industry to agree it rather than take tough decisions. There is nothing new in that. I hope he will seek compensation at EU level to assist in maintaining a rendering industry in this country It is crucial part of the food industry and a prerequisite for the continuation of the meat processing industry, which is already in crisis. The industry cannot function without it. Three weeks remain before termination of the temporary assistance agreement and there is no sign of the problem being resolved.

As from 22 May we face a continuing crisis in the meat industry but we do not have any real idea of how to solve it. The Minister has three weeks left and it is time to get a grip on matters because the national interest continues to be under threat as a result of the failure to solve this grave problem.

It is a pity that Deputy Cowen could not speak at greater length because he gave us more information than the Minister. I was interested to hear some of the figures. The Minister portrayed this as a solution to a big problem but it is a temporary, stopgap measure. We are told that the Department will not spend more than £2.5 million but if this is retained, the cost will run to many million of pounds. I cannot estimate how many and the Minister has not given us any figures on costs.

The scheme proposed by the Minister will terminate in 19 days' time. The date, 21 May, falls on a Sunday and, therefore, the measure will come to an end on the previous Friday — I presume no rendering will take place on Saturday and Sunday. That means there are only 17 days left under which this measure will operate. It is not sufficient for the Minister to come to the House and say he is introducing a scheme for which he wants the approval of the Dáil, but it will expire in 17 days. The BSE problem will not end in 17 days. The consequences of it will be with us for years and the Minister must take a longer term view than he is at present.

What concerns me about this matter is that it involves a nominal Supplementary Estimate for £1,000, simply to open a subhead, but once the subhead is open the Minister will continue to draw on it up to Christmas. A few days before Christmas, just as the House is about to go into recess, he will seek approval for a second Supplementary Estimate for a huge sum of money and we will be told that since we are approaching the end of the year, the Dáil is about to go into recess and we have to make all the payments, the House must agree to it. That is what will happen, and that is not satisfactory.

Neither is it satisfactory that a new scheme such as this should be debated in a perfunctory manner with Deputies not allowed to tease out the details. There is virtually no information on this matter in the Minister's speech. Deputy Cowen quoted some figures which are frightening for the ongoing costs. If he is right, this is an open-ended measure about which people will complain bitterly in the future. They will ask why the Dáil did not do something about it when it was introduced, but the reason is the House cannot do so.

It is worth looking back at the history of this. As Deputy Cowen said, up to the Easter weekend the Department said this had nothing to do with it, that some other Department should solve the problem. On Easter Sunday the Minister was approached about the matter and on Monday he dashed to Dublin——

Via Fairyhouse.

I did not realise that, but he reached Dublin eventually. I am not sure whether he was accompanied by civil servants but he was certainly accompanied by a press coterie because by the hour I heard bulletins——

He was doing a hammer job on me at the time.

——to the effect that the Minister was coming to grips with the problem, that a package had been put together and there would be an emergency Cabinet meeting on Tuesday morning.

There was to be an imminent breakthrough.

I listened to these reports spellbound on Easter Sunday evening. I later inquired whether a Cabinet meeting took place on Tuesday to deal with this matter, but there was not a meeting that day.

Nor any Tuesday.

Of all the current clichés being pumped out through the media, the only one we did not hear was that a task force would be set up. This is practically the only problem that has arisen in the past year or so for which a task force was not set up. I wonder will such a body be set up shortly. This whole process was carried on for optics rather than for reality. We have Government by press release, press statements and so on rather than reality. There is no reality in what is happening. We have a serious long-term problem, the consequences of which will not go away, and the Minister has not dealt with it. He suggests that it will disappear in 17 days, but that will not happen. I do not know what the total cost will be over a long period and we have been given no indication of that today; it could be enormous.

It strikes me that the lobbying power of the meat industry and various aspects of it must be incredible. If any other industry experiences a major problem there is not the slightest possibility of it being bailed out on the basis of a subsidy per ton of production. If, for example, the electronics industry were to run into an insuperable problem in the morning does anyone think that the Department of Enterprise and Employment would ask this House to pass a subsidy of, say, £500 per computer produced, to run indefinitely, and introduce a Supplementary Estimate to that effect? That would not happen. It is remarkable that this industry is able to achieve such results.

We are entitled to know on what basis the money will be paid out. Small amounts of State money are paid to individuals on the basis that they produce, for example, tax clearance certificates. Payments are subject to retention tax and penalising measures of that nature, but in this case millions of pounds will be paid out to people who in some cases, through their activities in the beef industry, owe the State tens of millions of pounds. The people from whom the State is allegedly seeking to recover money are those who will be handed millions of pounds. Many of the major rendering companies are wholly owned by processing companies — I do not know the exact proportion because, unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to get that information. These are the people who owe the State millions of pounds and, wearing another hat, millions of pounds will be handed to them without any effort to set off one payment against the other. That is not good enough. There will be an outcry about this when the final cost is known. When this debate is read people will ask why the Dáil was not given the information or why it allowed the measure to go through without the information being given.

Will the Minister say what will happen when the measure expires in 17 days' time? On what basis will payments be made? Will they be made to companies the ownership of which owes the State tens of millions of pounds for continued malpractices in the beef industry? It is a joke that people who owe the State so much money will be given very large sums of money.

We have no indication of how Britain is dealing with this problem. It is certainly not bringing in a scheme of this kind. The problem is much more serious for that country. There seems to be no point in converting offal into a product that is unsaleable. It would be much more sensible and much cheaper to dispose of the offal than introduce a subsidy, as we are doing.

We were told over the Easter weekend that there are 2,000 people engaged in this industry. The following Tuesday morning a senior official from the main union involved said that that was news to him and that the maximum number of people employed in the industry is about 400.

Like Deputy Cowen, I regret very much that I do not have the opportunity to tease out this matter and to ask questions about it. It is unsatisfactory that the House is asked as it were, on the blind——

It was initially asked to pass the motion without debate.

——to pass a measure which involves a relatively nominal amount of money but which, by opening a new subhead without restriction, puts no limit on the amount of money that may be paid out by the Minister between now and 31 December provided the House passes a second Supplementary Estimate.

I ask the Taoiseach to examine what is happening now. When he was in Opposition he complained bitterly about this type of thing. It is a serious matter that we should be put in this position and it is totally unsatisfactory. I ask the Minister when he gets an opportunity to give Members of this House and the public proper information and lay at rest the many concerns people naturally have about it.

It is a decision of the House this morning and the Chair has an obligation to implement it.

I will try to be precise on the time because I know it is important for everybody to have an input into this debate. I am a little disappointed at the attitude of the Progressive Democrats but it is the usual one they adopt when retaining jobs in a vital industry is involved. They talk about a blank cheque but the Minister said the maximum amount available in this package is £2.5 million.

It is essential for the whole food industry in Ireland to ensure that the rendering industry, which is vital to that sector, is assisted in this crisis but it must be assisted also in the longterm either by way of examination by experts in Europe or elsewhere. Veterinary and other advice must be available to us so that we discover the reason for discontinuing the use of this product in the non-ruminant sector.

We accept that meat and bonemeal has not been used here in the feed of ruminants since 1990 but it continues to be used throughout Europe, with the exception of the UK. It was suppliers in the UK who first raised this problem. Multinational companies such as Sainbury, Tesco, Marks and Spencer asked the meat processors here whether they were using meat and bonemeal. Once that question was asked, a doubt was created in the minds of consumers about eating products from animals which were fed meat and bonemeal, albeit safe meat and bonemeal.

Meat and bonemeal are produced by two factories in my constituency. I was in touch with those factories this morning and they appreciate what the Minister is doing. They realise if this action is not taken, there will be widespread loss of employment in my constituency and throughout the country. Deputy O'Malley can misquote the figures or the trade unions if he wishes but when the figure of 2,000 was mentioned as being involved in this industry, the trade unions said they were only aware of approximately 400. That is the unionised labour but, in addition to that, there are many other people involved in the industry including those who collect carcases, provide transport services, etc. If anything happens to this industry in my constituency, approximately 120 people will lose their jobs.

We cannot apply the restriction proposed by the Progressive Democrats that money cannot be spent to protect employment. The Department over which Deputy O'Malley presided as Minister was prepared to spend £20,000 per job to encourage a multinational company to set up in Ireland but Irish industrialists are involved in this industry.

The Ronan family in Tipperary, for whom I have great respect, employs many people in Rosegreen. They are not multinationals; they are not looking for £20,000 per job to retain the jobs at their factory. Munster Proteins employs local people, has a local management and is Irish-owned. These people are doing what we have always asked them to do — they are adding value to the product. If we have only live exports, if we do not have factory processing and if we do not have added value on all our products, this industry will not develop.

The rendering industry is worth almost £40 million. The wage bill for the people in Tipperary is approximately £2 million per annum. That is the total value of this package which the Progressive Democrats obviously resent but on which the Minister has put a cap of £2.5 million. This is only a temporary measure and unless and until there is scientific evidence to prove that this product is suitable for feeding, some action will have to be taken to protect the workers in this industry, otherwise the whole food processing industry will be at risk.

Meat cannot be produced on the shop floor, at the butcher's stall or through the abattoirs without the fifth quarter being processed. If that is not processed it must be dumped but where do we dump it? Land infill sites and tipheads have been mentioned but county council dumps cost a fortune in taxpayers' money to provide. We are talking about dumping huge quantities of unprocessed material in tipheads. What local authority can accommodate that? My local authority certainly cannot. For the past four years we have been trying to identify an alternative tiphead or land infill site on which to dump the normal refuse collection of South Tipperary County Council.

This problem cannot be addressed simply by talking about the possibility of dumping material. If it is dumped many jobs in the rendering industry will be lost and environmental problems will be created in each county. The PD argument — they seem to have difficulties with certain people in the industry, particularly factory owners — is that we should disregard all that.

The workers in my constituency should not be penalised for something that is outside their control. This is a problem in an industry in my constituency which is controlled and approved by the Department. It has the highest standards of processing, using the highest temperatures, and it meets all the environmental requirements placed on it. People often complain about bad odours in the rendering industry, particularly those living in urban areas. I have visited these factories and I am aware of the enormous investment they have made in order to deal with that problem.

We are facing a major problem and we cannot simply make jokes about the Minister going to the races or whether he was or was not at a Cabinet meeting.

He was at the races. There is no harm in that.

Did Deputy Cowen ever go to the races?

I have been to the races but it is the Deputy's sense of humour that is missing as usual.

The problem with having a sense of humour is that the workers involved in this industry are fed up listening to people like Deputy Cowen.

I know that better than the Deputy. What are the workers going to do on 22 May? Deputy Ferris should not preach to me about them.

The time limit is very strict in this debate. Interruptions are most unwelcome.

The workers in the industry recognise that something is being done and being frivolous on the floor of the House will do nothing to sustain confidence in public representatives.

Nobody has taken this matter more seriously than I have.

I know as much about this industry as Deputy Cowen.

The Deputy does not want a debate on this issue.

Deputy Cowen has made his contribution. He should allow the Member in possession to make his without continuous interruption.

I will not be criticised by Deputy Ferris.

The trouble with people like Deputy Cowen is that they never want to listen to what anybody else has to say.

I have listened but I did not say anything to the Deputy. He should stick to his own point.

At least the Deputy supported it.

The time is limited and it is about to conclude.

Deputy Ferris should get a sense of humour.

A sense of humour in an important industry——

On a particular issue, not on this issue. I am talking about the remark that was made.

The Government has made a decision and we should accept it.

On a point of order, I object to the idea that I took this problem lightly. I did not. In fact, I have carried out some research on it.

I have said this is a very limited debate in respect of time and interruptions are uncalled for and disorderly.

I am sure the people who listened to the contributions of Deputy Cowen and Deputy O'Malley will realise how serious they were about this grave problem.

My contribution is on the record and I would like to know what the Deputy's constituents are going to do on 22 May.

I am concerned about that also and I am quite sure——

The Deputy should sort it out. His party is in Government.

——we can depend on the Minister and not the Deputy.

I will talk to the Deputy again on 23 May.

I support this motion and I pay tribute to Deputy Cowen for insisting we have an opportunity to debate it. As somebody who worked in the livestock industry for 14 years before coming into this House, I value at first hand the contribution of the rendering industry to this country. I am from a constituency which has operated the largest rendering project in the country for the past 45 years, namely Premier By-Products in Ballinsloe in which the company employs people from at least 100 families directly and indirectly. For everybody directly employed in the rendering industry there are at least two people indirectly employed in ancillary services.

The Minister said this industry could be regarded as a contribution to the environment. It makes a vital contribution to our environment in that it processes offal and dead animals from various outlets. If such an outlet did not exist we would have a serious environmental crisis. Each week the rendering industry collects from butchers from high street premises all the offal which they dispose of free of charge, take it to their plants and process it. In addition they take into their industry, on a commercial basis, several other animals and products from many parts of the country. If we did not have such an industry we would have serious environmental difficulties.

The industry is governed by two European Union Directives, 90/667 and 92/562. It is a shocking indictment of State industrial policy when it is de facto stated in document No. 53 of State industrial policy that there will be no investment in projects relating to the production of greaves, inedible tallow or meat and bonemeal. I call on the Minister to recognise the contribution this industry is making and to set in train industrial support for its modernisation, upkeep and development so that it can be expanded and jobs sustained. It is vital that its contribution to agriculture, food processing and the environment is sustained into the future.

The British Government decided on 20 March to ban the use of meat and bonemeal in feed for all farm animals, including pigs and poultry. I cannot understand how pig and poultry producers here took a unilateral voluntary decision to do likewise. I understand there was consultation with the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. I cannot understand how such a decision would be taken because it is a statement by primary producers that they were not satisfied with what they were feeding their animals. That is not a good signal to the international world and I understand that decision has affected our penetration of markets. I call on the Minister and producers to lift that ban and to revert to feeding meat and bonemeal. If an analysis was carried out on other products which are being fed, they would not reach the high standards attained by meat and bonemeal, for example, the laboratory tests, the link with the universities and so on. It is vital to take cognisance of the huge contribution of the rendering industry. It is also vital under the Cohesion and Structural Funds programme, through the Department of the Environment, that these projects are made available to us with additional European support, that the rendering industry is allowed to link in to those so that they can be part of the modernisation of environmental services which are vital to projects and factories throughout the country.

I hope the Minister understands the value of this industry. If this industry gets into difficulty there will be a national crisis of mammoth proportions. Unless he maintains, and supports the industry and ensures we operate to the highest scientific and technical standards in all aspects of livestock producton, food production and industrial processes pertaining to rendering and unless the support and the market is available and the public is crystal clear about the high standards we have continually operated then Irish agriculture will experience a number of years of serious decline. I ask the Minister to speak with his Cabinet colleagues, the State agencies and the farming organisations who are the primary producers, and that every opportunity will be provided to immediately revert to the 30 per cent consumption rate of meat and bonemeal which the domestic market was able to sustain until the present crisis. I hope we will be able to expand and develop the rest of the markets internationally so that the rendering industry can continue to provide a valuable contribution to job creation and to the high standards of Irish products in foreign markets in the years ahead.

This is a very important debate. In his opening remarks the Minister said: "I would like to take Deputies back to the situation which livestock producers, slaughterhouses and renderers faced immediately before Easter." This was a dark week for Irish agriculture, Irish beef producers, pig producers and all those involved in livestock and poultry production because of the failure of the Department prior to that weekend to make a decision which would alleviate the problem because of the statement made by the renderers that they would not be in a position to collect materials that week.

The Minister was slow to act and that week much slaughtering was lost. It would have helped the industry and the primary producer if the Minister had made a decision. That uncertainty has caused real damage to the beef and pig industries. He went on to say he has made the services of his Department available as facilitator to those parties. This came about only because the maximum pressure was put on him. Every Deputy had phone call after phone call from meat processors, pig slaughterers and poultry processors asking what could be done. Farmers' livestock which was ready for slaughtering was queueing up and a serious situation was developing. We are now suffering as a result of the inefficient handling of the matter by the Government. I do not blame the Minister as he has a difficulty at the Cabinet because of the parties with which he is linked. I sympathise with Deputy Ferris, who is so pro-agriculture, but the Labour Party do not see it in the same way.

That is the Deputy's perception.

In regard to intervention, the Minister mentioned the highest kill ever seen. Cattle prices have hit a new low here. We are selling live beef cattle at 92p per pound. That is the lowest price for many years. Since this Government took office there has been a downturn in the beef prices. We have failed to get refixing prices in Brussels and nothing has been done. The beef industry has no confidence in the Government. I understand that if the Minister does not continue this level of support after 21 May there will be another crisis.

I am reliably informed by a processor, whom I will not name, that the cost could be as high as £4 per pig if there is not an outlet for the offal and that beef offal could cost as much as £35.50.

I urge the Minister to examine new areas and to consider grant-aid. Each meat plant or processor should have an incinerator on site. I understand incinerators can be purchased cheaply. Because of pressure and low levels of profit the industry is not able to invest in incinerators, which are the way forward. I understand only two plants in the country have incinerators. Grant-aid or a concession from the European Union would be the ideal solution to the problem. People have lost confidence in meat and bonemeal and in offals and byproducts. For that reason there will be a surplus for a long time to come.

From my little knowledge of agriculture, many famous nutritionists over the years have talked about a 5 per cent or 10 per cent inclusion in ration formulations because of the importance of animal protein for the reproductive system. That will have to be replaced by other sources of protein. Meat and bonemeal have a high level of protein. Feed prices are increasing. I understand that soyabean meal which has 48 per cent protein costs in excess of £200 per tonne while this time last year it could be purchased for £150. Wheat and maize are practically unobtainable at this time so that the Irish livestock industry is going through a traumatic period, especially the non-ruminant area, pigs and poultry, because of the high labour and feeding costs.

The Minister must address this crisis. I understand there are eight plants that process offals as renderers, some of which are owned by meat processors. As some of them have not always adhered to proper standards, an inspectorate should be appointed to carry out on-the-spot investigations at those plants. As Minister for Agriculture, Senator O'Kennedy was the first person to ban the use of meat and bonemeal following a BSE scare. I fear for the Irish agricultural industry, cattle farmers and livestock producers in general. After 21 May they will be held to ransom by the renderers. I appeal to the Minister to promote the development of Irish agriculture and to have regard for the primary producer who has been neglected by this Government and is facing a downturn in prices. The livestock and cattle industry is in a crisis. Cull cows are making less than 70 pence per pound in factories, the lowest price in ten years. This Government will have more livestock grazing dykes along roadsides than any previous Government. It will be worse than the days of the economic war.

I note the contributions of Deputies and will provide them with a copy of the agreement and terms of the temporary financial assistance scheme for the Irish rendering industry, dated April 1996. There is no question of me not making information available. I have nothing to hide and will be happy to answer parliamentary questions on specific matters. I am not sure to what Deputy O'Malley referred when he spoke about lack of information. I was not aware of a proposal not to hold a debate on this matter. I have been available at all times for such a debate and I do not have any difficulty in answering questions.

A point that has not been put in proper context is that we must acknowledge the concerns of taxpayers. Before 20 March meat and bonemeal was worth £170 per tonne but because of a food safety scare it now has a negative value. That is a commercial adjustment and the same happened in 1990 when, rather than being paid for offal at meat factories, renderers were paid to take it away. A commercial solution was found at that time. Pig and poultry feeders may discover that there is not a scientific basis for their voluntary ban. The Department had no hand, act or part in its imposition. There is not a legal ban.

The Minister was consulted.

If a voluntary ban is put in place by the trade relative to——

What advice did the Minister give?

Did the Minister welcome it?

No, I publicly called for this window of time to examine the possibility of doing what is being done in continental Europe. I understand there are varying views between pig and poultry feeders and that poultry feeders might be more amenable to using this feedstuff. The worst possible outcome would be that the meat and bonemeal would be cooked and dumped in landfill sites. Discussions are taking place with the Environmental Protection Agency in that regard and I will do everything possible to prevent a crisis.

Taxpayers cannot be left open to paying for an ongoing subsidy after 21 May. I have the figures from the Federation of Irish Renderers to which Deputy Cowen referred. Irrespective of the press releases, I met the meat processors on Easter Tuesday morning. People did not want to know about this problem, they said it was up to me to resolve it.

There is a difficulty with meat and bonemeal across Europe and since 20 March it has been devalued. No member state, other than the UK, has put a subsidy in place. A subsidy of £180 million for one year has been provided in Britain, but it is taking 15,000 to 20,000 animals per week out of the food chain because of its over 30 months policy. We are not subject to an EU ban and, therefore, we must follow what is happening in the rest of Europe.

Two meetings have taken place. I was not impressed by the contributions of those who pretend the problem will go away. Renderers are now placing a value on the depreciation of stocks and a figure of under £12 per head in the case of a bovine animal was mentioned. If that is the case it is a commercial reality for everybody. It would be wrong to put in place a statutory levy. That would introduce State bureaucracy for something that was dealt with in 1990 when meat and bonemeal was devalued overnight because of a BSE scare. We will do everything possible to reopen export markets and assist in terms of domestic consumption of other species. There is no scientific evidence that BSE is transmissible across another species into a non-ruminant species, namely, an avian species or the pigmeat sector. We must have regard for taxpayers and I will intervene in the talks between producers, processors and renderers if reality does not prevail. However, I will not be railroaded into a position on 22 May which I was in on 9 April.

I thank the House Members for their co-operation.

Will the Minister talk to State agencies about the position?

I will go before an Oireachtas committee with my Estimate and will be happy to answer any questions in regard to this or any other subject.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share